Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Anglo-South African Trade

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a further statement on Anglo-South African trade.

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. John Davies): The provisional figure for our exports for the year 1970 is £333 million. This represents an increase of 14 per cent. over 1969. The provisional figure for imports is £259 million.

Mr. Wall: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the success of the Under-Secretary of State's visit to South Africa. Will my right hon. Friend say what steps are being taken to improve this already good figure? Does he agree that British investment in such major projects in Southern Africa as the Cabora Bassa dam will be of benefit to millions of Africans?

Mr. Davies: I thank my hon. Friend for his words of commendation on the Under-Secretary of State's visit, which was extremely successful.
The facilities made available by the Department for the promotion of exports to Southern Africa are on a par with those made available for exports throughout the world. I take my hon. Friend's point about the Cabora Bassa dam. The export industries concerned are very interested in these possibilities.

Mr. Benn: First, has there been any change whatsoever, since the change of Government, in the policy of supplying arms to South Africa? Secondly, what estimates has the right hon. Gentleman put in to the Government of the loss of trade in other markets if arms are supplied, in line with the Government's policy?

Mr. Davies: As and when there is any decision on the subject of arms to South Africa, the House will, of course, be informed. It is my normal habit to provide estimates of future trading movements for consideration when decisions are taken on all policies by the Government.

Nuclear-propelled Merchant Ships

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a further statement on his discussions with industry on plans for building a prototype nuclear-propelled merchant vessel.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): Industry was consulted widely during the Department's recent study of the economics of nuclear ship propulsion.

Mr. Wall: Therefore, the view of both Her Majesty's Government and industry is that a new prototype nuclear-propelled merchant ship will not be constructed until it proves economic. Is not that rather a defeatist view which will put us behind at least five other maritime nations?

Mr. Ridley: The report, which will be published in due course, comes to the conclusion which my hon. Friend has suggested. I do not think that it puts us behind the other maritime nations, because no nuclear ship at present afloat is economic as opposed to commercial.

Mr. Dalyell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a number of hon. Members are less than enthusiastic about this project at a time when there are so many accidents involving merchant vessels?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman's views are noted.

Dame Irene Ward: Is my hon. Friend aware that I am getting rather bored hearing Answers time after time on the lines of those which have been given this afternoon to Questions put by my hon. Friends? Will my hon. Friend give us an


analysis of the whole situation—how many Question, how many Answers—and let us get on with something?

Mr. Ridley: I think that my hon. Friend would find it even more boring if we were to construct a nuclear ship which was uneconomic at a time when little could be gained in terms of research from such a project.

Companies Legislation (Review)

Mr. Normanton: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to complete his review of the companies legislation, with particular regard to the protection of minority interests in private companies.

Mr. John Davies: I cannot yet say when the review will be completed, but this question comes within it.

Mr. Normanton: Whilst thanking my right hon. Friend for the assurance that this anomalous situation will be dealt with in the forthcoming study, may I urge upon him the need to give considerable consideration to the subject since it is causing acute anxiety to a large number of people in private limited companies in particular?

Mr. Davies: I assure my hon. Friend that the particular problem which he raises is well within the sphere of matters considered by us at the present stage, particularly with reference to the situation in private companies.

Mr. Dell: Does the right hon. Gentleman's Answer mean that no further action will be taken to improve financial disclosure requirements in the foreseeable future?

Mr. Davies: "Foreseeable future" is a fairly indeterminate expression. It is our intention to make a complete review of company law, and we are now engaged in this. In the light of that complete review we shall reach conclusions about any interim measures which we consider suitable.

Sir J. Rodgers: Can my right hon. Friend say whether this review will look into the problem of a minority group controlling large companies, and see that all classes of shareholders have equal voting rights?

Mr. Davies: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance.

European Patent Agreement

Mr. Skeet: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will place in the Library of the House the draft conventions prepared by the European Economic Community and the European Free Trade Association on a European patent agreement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): I am grateful to my hon. Friend from drawing attention to this matter. Copies of the three draft conventions in question have been placed in the Library.

Mr. Skeet: I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend for that reply. Are the Government in favour of the minimal approach for the grant of a system of law covering the grant of patents? Is my hon. Friend prepared to go even further and examine a system of law granting validity of patents?

Mr. Grant: We are always anxious to obtain greater efficiency in the law relating to patents of an international nature and all the matters referred to by my hon. Friend will be taken into consideration.

Air Corporations (Transfer of Routes)

Mr. Molloy: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what representations have been made to him by the trade unions involved regarding the proposal to transfer certain British European Airways and British Overseas Airways Corporation routes; and what replies he sent;
(2) what recent representations he has received about the proposed transfer of routes from British European Airways and the British Overseas Aircraft Corporation to Caledonian Airways.

Mr. John Davies: A number of representations have been made and meetings held, including one with representatives of the T.U.C. General Council and of the employees' side of the Civil Aviation National Joint Council, following which statements were released to the Press.

Mr. Molloy: I am grateful for that reply, although the replies which the right hon. Gentleman has sent ought to be a matter for debate in the House. Is


the right hon. Gentleman not seized of the fact that many employees in these large corporations feel that the Government have filched from them something which they created to help the national effort, and not for personal gain? This action cannot help industrial relations in this industry, or create any feeling of confidence at all in the right hon. Gentleman or, indeed, in any future action that he takes, in so far as he is using the law, or intends to use it, to steal a large part of a public corporation to which so many people have devoted their lives.

Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman will realise that the main preoccupation of these representations has been with regard to employment problems involved. In relation to these the Government have had certain assurances from Caledonian B.U.A., and the fact that they have themselves been able to find reassurance in the development of the industry sincerely brings me to believe that the fears which might otherwise have been prevalent need not be entertained.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the tremendous concern in the trade union movement and on the back benches on this side of the House—although there may be some agreement between the Front Benches—about this issue? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that unless some kind of reassurance is quickly given, for instance about the Paris routes, the West African routes and the Caribbean routes, even more uncertainty is bound to be created?

Mr. Davies: I should like to give the assurance that I am seized of the need to make the earliest possible announcement of the complementary transfers envisaged. I seek, however, again to emphasise that the extent of these transfers, taken in relation to the total line revenue of the corporations, is small.

Mr. Sheldon: Is not the transfer of these routes in effect an actual transfer of money direct from the public service to private industry? Is not this what it is all about? Surely the right hon. Gentleman must account for this squandering of public money in this way?

Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman should perhaps remember that the Edwards Committee found that there was

a need to undertake such a transfer to make viable what the Labour Party considered to be a sound solution in terms of the creation of a second force air line. The Government have done no more than to see through the means that are necessary to ensure that end.

Mr. Mason: The previous Government did not accept the Edwards Committee's recommendation on that score, and the right hon. Gentleman knows full well that we were not prepared to set up a second force by carving up B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. Will the right hon Gentleman tell the House when the transfers are likely to be effected and when the House will be told about the £6-million worth of annual route revenue that will be transferred from B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. to Caledonian B.U.A.?

Mr. Davies: My right hon. Friend has announced to the House the major item of transfer with regard to the West African routes. The complementary ones will be announced to the House as soon as it is possible to do so, and I wish to do so at the earliest possible opportunity.

Industrial Development Certificates

Mr. Kinsey: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether in view of the loss of employment opportunity in the motor industry, he will reconsider his policy for the issuing of industrial development certificates in the city of Birmingham area.

The Minister for Industry (Sir John Eden): In considering applications for industrial development certificates in Birmingham, I shall take full account of the situation there, but the needs of the development and intermediate areas must continue to have priority.

Mr. Kinsey: I hope that my hon. Friend will bear in mind the need to be flexible in his approach, because there is a changing pattern in industry all the time and it is beginning to affect employment in the Birmingham district, particularly among the 50 to 60-year old workers, and thriving industries must be allowed to develop to contain this amount.

Sir J. Eden: We shall certainly continue to operate this policy with the maximum degree of flexibility, but the fact


remains that the unemployment figures in Birmingham are well below the national average.

Mr. Blenkinsop: We welcome the Minister's statement, but does he realise that there is deep anxiety in the development areas about what is the Government's policy about development certificates?

Sir J. Eden: Yes, but the hon. Gentleman knows that the whole question of our policy on regional areas has been under close study.

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the representations made to him by the Confederation of British Industry regarding industrial development certificate policy.

Sir J. Eden: My right hon. Friend attended a meeting with the C.B.I. on 19th November when industrial development certificate policy, particularly in relation to small businesses, was discussed. He agreed to bear in mind the points made.

Mr. Douglas: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his reply, but would he not concede that there is considerable disquiet, particularly in Scotland and in other development areas, about the change in industrial development certificate policy? The growing level of redundancies in Scotland necessitates stringent control of factory development in the South-East and the Midlands, and the Government's more flexible policy is destroying the incentives to go to the development areas. Will he take urgent action to reverse the process?

Sir J. Eden: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the I.D.C. exemption limit was kept reasonably low, especially in the Midlands and South-East. In Scotland the revised system of financial assistance should continue to encourage the provision of new jobs there.

Mr. Varley: The Minister referred to the needs of the development areas and intermediate areas, and to the need for strict observation of the I.D.C. practice. Can he say why it was decided to raise the square footage of industrial development certificates in advance of the review which the Government have got going? Is not there undue haste in this matter?

Sir J. Eden: I do not think that there is any question of undue haste. There was a self-evident need to reduce the burden on Government and industry without significantly affecting the movement of industry to the development and intermediate areas.

Industrial Development (West Cumberland)

Dr. John A. Cunningham: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he has taken to secure new industrial development in West Cumberland, south of Lillyhall, in the Borough of Whitehaven and the rural district of Ennerdale and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Anthony Grant: Whitehaven Municipal Borough and Ennerdale Rural District are situated in Special Development Areas which will benefit from the measures announced on 27th October. The Department will continue to do everything possible to persuade industry of the advantages of locating there.

Dr. Cunningham: Does not the Minister agree that that rather nefarious reply will be wholly unacceptable to the people in West Cumberland who are unemployed? Will he take steps to publish statistics at sub-regional level showing the effect of previous policies in the development areas, before there are any other changes in such policies, because until statistics of that kind are available, how can the Minister possibly argue that the kind of coverage that we had earlier was not effective?

Mr. Grant: I hardly think it was nefarious to say:
The Department will continue to do everything possible to persuade industry of the advantages of locating there.
There are a number of advance factories and properties still available, and we shall do everything that we can to draw them to the attention of industry. I should have thought that that was extremely helpful.

Northern Region (Industrial and Commercial Projects)

Dr. John A. Cunningham: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many firms which were planning new industrial or commercial projects, or


extensions of existing ones, in the Northern region, have now indicated to him that they are reviewing their position, following the changes in financial incentives announced in October 1970; and whether any of these projects are connected with Cumberland.

Mr. Anthony Grant: About 12, including four for West Cumberland. However, these figures have little significance, since I am sure that all firms are considering the implications of the Government's proposals on investment incentives.

Dr. Cunningham: Is it not remarkable that the Minister can say that these figures are of little significance when one considers the persistent underlying unemployment in areas like West Cumberland? Does not this situation emphasise how right hon. Members on this side of the House were when they said that the effect of these changes in policy would be to reduce the number of jobs going to the development areas?

Mr. Grant: It is entirely premature to make a dogmatic statement like that. Some firms will be better off and some firms will be worse off, but it will be some time before any useful assessment can be made, and we quite seriously believe that the policies which we have announced will bring more employment to the hon. Member's constituency.

Mr. Bagier: Is the Minister aware that unemployment is at present increasing in the development areas? Is he not also aware that it is the change in incentives that has taken place that is causing a standstill in inquiries in the regions? Why does his right hon. Friend feel that one of the first priorities in development area policy should be an increase from 5,000 sq. ft. to 10,000 sq. ft. in the footage required for industrial development certificates?

Mr. Grant: The latter part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question was dealt with by my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry when he replied to Question No. 7. We believe quite seriously that what is in the best interests of the development areas is a policy that brings to them profitable and long-term industry, and that is what we believe will be the effect of our policy.

Mr. Benn: In view of the figures which the Minister has given the House today,

will he now publish figures for all the development areas so that the country as a whole can judge whether his claim that his new incentives will improve the position in fact stands up to examination, or whether, as we argued, they will damage development in the development areas?

Mr. Grant: No, Sir. As I said before, it will be some time before any useful assessment can be made of the impact of the new incentives—it is far too soon to do that—but we are watching the position closely and when there has been time for incentives to new firms to be reflected in their investment decisions, we can come back.

Merseyside (Vacant Industrial Premises)

Mr. Tilney: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will outline the steps his Department is taking to help find new occupants for the various large modern industrial premises at present vacant on Merseyside.

Mr. Anthony Grant: The Department maintains an up-to-date register of available industrial premises in the assisted areas, including Merseyside, and provides detailed information about them to firms seeking such premises.

Mr. Tilney: In view of the heavy unemployment on Merseyside, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that four large ex-heavy-engineering factories with 1·4 million sq. ft. of space are vacant, and will he undertake a special campaign both here and overseas to get these premises occupied?

Mr. Grant: I am aware of the premises to which my hon. Friend refers. I can understand his concern about unemployment, though it is perhaps slightly marginally worse in other areas. My Department is doing everything possible to bring these premises to the notice of interested firms. We have an advertising campaign, and our regional offices keep bringing the position to the attention to all who make inquiries. We have already had some inquiries from the United States and Europe.

Merseyside Industrial Area

Mr. Tilney: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry why the


Merseyside Development Area has been allotted a low proportion of the total number of advance factories built since 1960; and what steps he is taking to ensure that this deficiency is rectified in the future.

Mr. Anthony Grant: Government advance factories are provided having regard to the circumstances of each assisted area. Private developers and the new town corporations have met a high proportion of Merseyside's needs and are continuing to do so.

Mr. Tilney: As in the 1960–70 programme, out of 229 advance factories Merseyside only got 10, will my hon. Friend consider the provision of more small advance factories in that area?

Mr. Grant: We will certainly always consider it, but it is only right to say that unemployment on Merseyside has generally been marginally lower than that in other development areas with which we are concerned, and a number of factories have been supplied by sources other than the Department for Trade and Industry.

Mr. Urwin: Does not this Question clearly underline the necessity for the Government to introduce a further supplementary to the advance factory programme so successfully carried out by the previous Government? Would it not resolve the problems of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) if this policy were to be extended in this way?

Mr. Grant: With respect, I do not think that that follows, because in this area, by contrast with other areas, there is usually a fair amount of existing industrial property available at any one time.

Mr. Varley: Will the Minister inform his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) that during the last period of Conservative Government only 46 advance factories were authorised, whereas under the last Government 220 were authorised? This is the significant difference in policy. Will not the hon. Gentleman consider the matter, and take the opportunity of announcing that there is to be a further advance programme this year?

Mr. Grant: Not at this stage. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that it is one thing to provide factories in the development

areas and another to provide firms to fill them.

Imported Goods (Labelling)

Mr. Raphael Tuck: asked the Secretary of state for Trade and Industry if he will seek powers to compel importers of goods into Great Britain to affix labels thereon stating the specific country of origin.

Mr. Anthony Grant: My right hon. Friend already has power to require goods to be marked with information about their origin, with information about their origin, under the Trade Descriptions Act, 1968.

Mr. Tuck: But they are not. Is the Minister aware that people like myself who refuse to have anything South African in the are in a quandary, because when we see the word "Foreign" on goods we do not know whether the goods are from South Africa? Perhaps he can give some advice on that point.

Mr. Grant: The advice I can give to the hon. Gentleman is that;under the Trade Descriptions Act he is entitled to ask the shopkeeper the origin of his wares, and if he is given an incorrect answer the shopkeeper can be prosecuted for misdescription.

U.N.C.T.A.D. (Effect on United Kingdom Industry)

Mr. Normanton: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give manufacturing industry in general an assurance that, while supporting the long-term objectives of United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, he will under no circumstances allow the interests of sections of British industry to be prejudiced in the short term.

Mr. John Davies: In deciding on action to support the objectives of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development we would naturally take full account of the interests of United Kingdom industry.

Mr. Normanton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am grateful for that assurance, particularly within the context of the textile industry, which is particularly brought to bear on Britain under the terms of U.N.C.T.A.D.

Mr. Davies: I thank my hon. Friend for his observation. It is true that the position of most textiles has been reserved under the proposals made by this country, in relation to the scheme. Certain textile products, however, are included within the preference arrangements.

Mr. Bagier: I in no way decry the need to help under-developed nations, but would the right hon. Gentleman, in addition to looking at the problems of textiles, look at the problems of the cordage industry? I understand that if complete freedom is given to under-developed nations, our cordage industry will be completely unable to stand up against their competition in view of the extremely low wages that are paid by certain of them.

Mr. Davies: We have that point in mind. We have reserved the right to withdraw or modify any preference granted under the scheme in the event of severe injury to our industry. I emphasise, however, that the whole purpose of the scheme, which we have consistently backed, is to help under-developed countries, and we would seek to do that.

Coal Imports

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will consult the appropriate trade unions concerning his policy on the importation of coal.

Sir J. Eden: I am always ready to hear their views on this subject.

Mr. Eadie: Why was the Minister so shy about making a statement on this very important issue? Can he tell the House what he is doing about the shortage of manpower in the coal mining industry and about the crisis of morale that exists in it at present?

Sir J. Eden: As to the first part of the hon. Member's supplementary question, as he knows, the information was given during the course of the Second Reading debate, when hon. Members had ample time to discuss it. The second part of his supplementary is another question.

Mr. Bob Brown: Does not the Minister agree that it is not conducive to restoring

morale to threaten an industry with the hiving off of the profitable parts?

Sir J. Eden: That, too, is another question.

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with the coal and steel industry about future coal imports.

Sir J. Eden: This has frequently been discussed with the two industries.

Mr. Eadie: Will the hon. Gentleman answer some questions for a change? This is a very important matter. Are sufficient types of coal available to the steel industry? What is the difference in price between imported coal and British coal?

Sir J. Eden: I have consulted both the National Coal Board and the major users about coal imports. The question of price is a matter for whoever imports the coal.

Mr. Concannon: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we might have cause belatedly to thank him for this because he is at least showing British industry just how cheap British coal is?

Sir J. Eden: There is this other point on the question of morale. It would have been far worse to have allowed to develop a bigger gap between supply and demand both this winter and the next.

Mr. Benn: If the hon. Gentleman is consulting the National Coal Board and the users, why not systematically consult the trade unions on matters as important as this?

Sir J. Eden: As I said earlier, I am very ready to talk to the trade unions about this.

Horticultural Produce (Imports)

Mr. John Wells: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the commercial advantage to the United Kingdom of importing horticultural produce already in over-supply in exchange for horticultural equipment that will further increase horticultural production in the supplying countries of Eastern Europe.

Mr. Holland: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the commercial advantage to the United


Kingdom of importing horticultural produce already in over-supply in exchange for horticultural equipment that will further increase horticultural production in the supplying countries of Eastern Europe.

Mr. John Davies: I think it safe to assume that this trade would not take place unless the traders concerned in this country, both as exporters and as importers, found it to their commercial advantage.

Mr. Wells: In view of the situation in cucumbers last year—[Laughter.] It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to laugh, but they drew their salaries while a great many British horticulturists did not draw any money last year. In view of the cucumber situation last year, which may not have been profitable to importers, will my right hon. Friend have urgent consultations with the market in order to get imports phased in at a proper rate, so that if these imports have to come in they may at least be profitable, as he has indicated, and not damage the home trade?

Mr. Davies: There is intensive discussion with the industries concerned, and with horticulture in particular, on these issues. However, the impact of this situation should not be exaggerated. The horticultural element is very small in the kind of arrangements which are entered into, particularly with Eastern European countries.

Mr. Emery: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that, in the negotiations which he says took place, there was strong feeling among farming interests that the treaty was disadvantageous to farming generally? If that is the case, surely there is an argument that the farming interests were not as happy about this matter as he suggests.

Mr. Davies: I take it that my hon. Friend refers to the arrangements made with Romania. I can well understand that there was some dissatisfaction, but the balance of the matter must be considered as well. The export value contract was very considerable indeed.

Mr. Fernyhough: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, whatever the effect of this agreement upon cucumber growers, the effect of going into the

Common Market will be disastrous to them?

Aldermaston Atomic Weapons Research Establishment

Mr. Booth: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of the work undertaken at the Aldermaston Atomic Weapons Research Establishment in the financial years 196768, 1968–69 and 1969–70 was attributable to civil projects.

Mr. Ridley: The proportion of total expenditure at A.W.R.E. Aldermaston attributable to civil work during the past three years is:—


1967–68
17 per cent.


1968–69
19 per cent.


1969–70
19 per cent.

Mr. Booth: In view of the relatively low economic growth rate in this country, would not the hon. Gentleman agree that there is urgent need to transfer a far higher proportion of our total research and development capacity to civil projects?

Mr. Ridley: There may be a need for more research to be done, but the question at issue is whether civil research of this sort should be funded by the Government or industry.

East Midlands Gas Board (Payment of Accounts)

Mr. Concannon: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give a general direction to the East Midlands Gas Board to appoint agents in areas not covered by gas showrooms to facilitate payment of accounts.

Mr. Ridley: No, Sir. This is a matter for the Board.

Mr. Concannon: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in areas not covered by gas showrooms, the lower-paid and pensioners have considerable difficulty in the payment of their accounts and incur extra cost in doing so? Is he aware that the East Midlands Electricity Board appoints agents in certain areas not covered by its showrooms?

Mr. Ridley: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should write to the Chairman of the Board because this is not a matter for which the Government are responsible.

Joint-Stock Banks (Competition)

Mr. Barnett: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consideration he has given to improving competition in banking; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. John Davies: As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said on 15th December, the matter will be kept under review.

Mr. Barnett: Is not the Government policy of promoting maximum competition as the solution to all our problems clearly seen to be so much humbug when they refuse to act when there is a clear abuse of monopoly power by the clearing banks? Or is it that they see these clearing banks as lame ducks who cannot stand on their own two feet?

Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman is aware—none better—of the intricacies of this problem. The apparent simplicity of his supplementary question conceals extremely difficult matters. The truth is that the relationship with the banks who operate within the framework of this cartel is a very embracing one and covers many items other than the simple question of customer relationship.

Self-destroying Plastic

Mrs. Butler: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he is taking to assist the development of self-destroying plastic in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Ridley: I am not contemplating the support of projects associated with a self-destroying or degradable plastic at present. There are serious difficulties about plastics which degrade and I shall need to be satisfied that any such project has a good chance of practical applications.

Mrs. Butler: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this attitude of Ministers is causing considerable concern because, unless this kind of plastic is developed, plastic itself will become a major pollution problem in the near future? Can he say whether, and, if so, how soon, he is likely to be satisfied about these substances so that he can promote a research and development contract which will enable this project to become commercially viable as soon as possible?

Mr. Ridley: The difficulty is that many foodstuffs are packaged in plastic containers and if they were to degrade before their time it might cause serious pollution to the foodstuffs. There is also the problem that sunlight degradation of plastics is unlikely to affect any plastic except that exposed to sunlight on the top of a refuse tip. There are serious objections to the basic principle underlying this type of research.

Sir C. Taylor: This is a serious problem and I ask my hon. Friend to consider it very carefully because, if he went to sea occasionally, like the Prime Minister, he would see in the sea an enormous number of plastic containers which come out of the sewers and down the rivers into the sea. What does he intend to do about the sea becoming a floating plastic container in the next 10 years?

Mr. Ridley: While agreeing that the sea is full of all sorts of undesirable things, I do not believe that the answer lies in doing research into the degradation of plastics by ultraviolet light in the present state of knowledge of the subject. We have to have regard to the dangers which would arise to those who ate food out of such plastic containers.

European Free Trade Association

Mr. Coombs: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the United Kingdom will take the initiative in proposing at the next European Free Trade Association Council meeting that further non-tariff barriers should be removed.

Mr. Anthony Grant: E.F.T.A. is currently engaged in a great deal of useful work on the removal of non-tariff barriers, particularly in the technical field. I do not consider that any additional stimulus is needed at the present time.

Mr. Coombs: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, but will he please say whether anything is being done about the control and marking of precious metals?

Mr. Grant: A draft agreement on the control and marking of articles of precious metals is in the process of being drawn up.

Mr. Mason: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman should have said that no


stimulus is required at present. This is not just a matter of the effect on non-tariff barriers. Is not he aware of the danger of restrictive trade legislation emanating from the United States, which has been temporarily suppressed but which might emerge again? Would it not be a good thing if the Government took the initiative proposed in U.N.C.T.A.D. to start a worldwide discussion on the abolition of non-tariff barriers, therefore getting away from the idea of the United States and probably other countries considering restrictive legislation?

Mr. Grant: The right hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the dangers of restrictive legislation in the United States, which has caused Her Majesty's Government very great concern. Our view has been expressed in a number of ways.
On the immediate question, E.F.T.A. is at least a useful and cohesive organisation in which immediate discussions on non-tariff barriers can take place. I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to imagine that we are not very alive to the dangers from the United States.

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will state the number of professional staff and the number of clerical staff, respectively, employed in the Secretariat of the European Free Trade Association in Geneva on the last available date.

Mr. Anthony Grant: The E.F.T.A. Secretariat currently employs 46 staff in the higher and professional grades and a further 46 in the general service grade.

Mr. Marten: Is that not an object lesson in achieving a wider home market for Britain at relatively low cost? What is the equivalent number of people employed at the E.E.C. at Brussels?

Mr. Grant: I should like to say how very efficiently this Secretariat does its job, but I warn the House that a straight comparison with the E.E.C. Commission is entirely misleading, because E.F.T.A. is merely a secretariat, whereas the E.E.C. Commission has policy-making and regulating functions also.

Mr. Eadie: Is not the real comparison that we shall have some control over E.F.T.A. but we shall have no control whatsoever over the E.E.C. Secretariat

and will be in the hands of other people deciding policies on behalf of Britain?

Mr. Grant: I do not accept that. It is well known that we shall have an opportunity to make our views felt.

Mr. Clinton Davis: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what attempts are being made further to increase the membership of the European Free Trade Association.

Mr. Body: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what attempts are being made to enlarge the membership of the European Free Trade Association.

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals he has for the enlargement of the membership of the European Free Trade Association.

Mr. Anthony Grant: No attempts are at present being made to enlarge E.F.T.A. The Stockholm Convention makes provision for any State, which so wishes, to apply for membership.

Mr. Davis: Why are no steps being taken to enlarge E.F.T.A. and extend its activities? Would not it be infinitely better for Britain if we were to enlarge E.F.T.A. rather than commit ourselves to spending about 23 per cent. of the Common Market budget by 1980? Would it not be better to undertake the extension of E.F.T.A. rather than negotiate capitulation terms with the Common Market countries?

Mr. Grant: This is entirely a matter of debate, and we shall be debating it later this week, anyway. I emphasise that there is absolutely nothing to stop any country, if it so wishes, from applying for membership, but the initiative must come from the country which wishes to join.

Mrs. Renée Short: As the Minister has said that E.F.T.A. is a very useful organisation, and as it certainly does not carry the unpopularity in Britain that entry into the Common Market does, not only on economic grounds but on political and military grounds as well, should not the hon. Gentleman take some initiative and try to extend and expand the E.F.T.A. organisation, not only in the interests of


Britain but also in the interests of the existing E.F.T.A. members?

Mr. Grant: I understand the hon. Lady's point of view, which is one point of view on this argument. I reiterate that there is nothing to stop a country from applying for membership. It is not for us at this stage to take any initiative to try to persuade a country to take a course of action which it should take for itself.

Mr. Molloy: In so far as we are members of E.F.T.A., do we not as a nation have a right to make recommendations to enlarge it? Are not the rather dramatic and frightening figures which the Minister gave in reply to the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) something which the nation ought to know? The big difference is that we are doing very well with E.F.T.A. but that there is a grave danger of our being totally submerged under bureacracy if we go into the E.E.C.

Mr. Grant: I thought that I was extremely careful not to give any dangerous figures to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point of view, but it does not take us any further than the fact that E.F.T.A. is a working organisation and there is the opportunity for other countries to apply to be members of it, if they so wish.

Mr. Alfred Morris: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and industry what was the total value of United Kingdom exports to other members of the European Free Trade Association in the first nine months of 1970.

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry by what percentage exports from the United Kingdom to each of the members of the European Free Trade Association increased in the first nine months of 1970.

Mr. Anthony Grant: Since the Answer contains some detailed figures, I will circulate these in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Exports to E.F.T.A. countries in the first nine months of 1970 were £938 million, an increase of 18 per cent. over the corresponding period of 1969.

Mr. Morris: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the figures which he quoted are extremely important in terms of our total foreign trade? Would he agree

that it would be asinine in any way adversely to affect this part of Britain's foreign trade? Are all our E.F.T.A. partners satisfied with the quality of our consultation with them about the progress of Britain's negotiations to join the Community?

Mr. Grant: As far as I am aware, there is no dissatisfaction among our E.F.T.A. partners. I have visited a number of them in Stockholm and discussed this problem with them. They are very pleased with the way in which they have been kept informed on the progress of these negotiations and many of them are negotiating in what they are hoping will be fruitful discussions.

Mr. Marten: Is not this 18 per cent. increase in our exports to E.F.T.A. very much in line with the increase in our exports to the Common Market countries? That being so, what steps are the Government taking to study the implications of a wider free trade area between the Six and the Seven, rather than this dubious venture to try to get into the Community?

Mr. Grant: What my hon. Friend says is correct. There has been a similar growth in exports to the E.E.C. countries. However, my hon. Friend should understand that there is no reason to suppose that some sort of wider European E.F.T.A. is likely to be any more negotiable now than it was when E.F.T.A. was originally formed.

Mr. Jay: Would the hon. Gentleman at least give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will not reach any arrangement with the E.E.C. which would involve erecting new trade barriers against the present members of E.F.T.A.?

Mr. Grant: The right hon. Gentleman has been long enough in the House to realise that I could not possibly give an assurance of that nature.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: Is it not a fact that there are a number of members of E.F.T.A. who are so concerned to have close consultations not only with ourselves but with the members of the E.E.C. that they are applying to join the Community?

Mr. Grant: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

Mr. Milne: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the figures he has given demonstrate that E.F.T.A. represents our major foothold in Europe? Will not this be in jeopardy if we go ahead with our Common Market entry application?

Mr. Grant: I do not believe that one can draw that sort of conclusion from the figures I have given. Nor are the consequences which the hon. Gentleman foretells likely.

Following is the information:


UNITED KINGDOM EXPORTS


Country
Increase between January—September Country 1969 and January—September 1970



Per cent.


Finland
29


Sweden
19


Norway (including Spitzbergen)
24


Denmark, Faroe Islands and Greenland
11


Switzerland and Liechtenstein
13


Portugal, Azores and Madeira
13


Austria
26


Iceland
52

Mr. Moyle: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the total value of trade between the European Free Trade Association and Eastern Europe for the last available year.

Mr. Anthony Grant: In 1969 exports of the European Free Trade Area to Eastern Europe were 1,850 million dollars f.o.b. and imports from Eastern Europe were 2,010 million dollars c.i.f.

Mr. Moyle: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that there are substantial markets as yet untapped in Eastern Europe? As he said that E.F.T.A. is obviously a useful instrument for allowing them to be tapped, may I ask him to say what discussions there have been between ourselves and the Common Market countries about protecting this position should we enter the Community?

Mr. Grant: I entirely agree that trade with Eastern Europe has great possibilities for the future. However, I do not think there is anything in our discussions with the E.E.C. which is necessarily inconsistent with that.

Mrs. Renée Short: Have we had any discussions with the Soviet Union in the recent trade talks about the effect of their signing a treaty with West Germany and

the effect that that is likely to have on our trade with Eastern Europe? Is he aware that this is an important matter which seems bound to affect our trade with Eastern Europe, unless we take energetic steps to deal with it?

Mr. Grant: The discussions with the Soviet Union in the last week have been confidential beyond what was put out in the communiqué. Regarding the hon. Lady's supplementary question about our relationship with Eastern Europe, I suggest that she tables a Question to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Why is one figure quoted f.o.b. and the other c.i.f.?

Mr. Grant: If my hon. Friend would care to write to me about that, I will give him a full and, I hope, thoroughly satisfactory answer.

Mr. Benn: Shall we have a statement in the House about the talks with Mr. Kirillin so that we may be kept informed?

Mr. Grant: Not at this stage.

Mr. Finsberg: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many submissions have been made under the complaints procedure of Article 31 of the Convention of the European Free Trade Association for each year since it was formed.

Mr. Anthony Grant: Article 31 of the E.F.T.A. Convention has been invoked on four occasions: by Austria against Portugal in 1962, by Denmark against Austria in 1963, and by Norway and Denmark against the United Kingdom in 1965 and 1966 respectively.

Mr. Finsberg: I thank my hon. Friend for that Answer. In view of the very small number of complaints, does he believe that this is an effective article?

Mr. Grant: I believe that it is an effective and useful article. I think that all these cases have been resolved to the satisfaction of the countries concerned.

Motor Car Sales (Purchasers' Rights)

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will introduce legislation to require vendors of motor vehicles to provide written particulars to purchasers of


their rights under the Sale of Goods Act, 1893.

Mr. Ridley: No, Sir. The application of this Act to a specific transaction depends too heavily on the particular circumstances for such a requirement to be helpful to the ordinary purchaser.

Mr. Greville Janner: Is the Minister aware that vast numbers of car buyers, especially buyers of secondhand cars, unwittingly give away their Sale of Goods Act rights in return for something much less, under spurious guarantees or warranties? Will the Government undertake to promote legislation to deal with this very common problem?

Mr. Ridley: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman accepts that if there is legislation it should be legislation to deal with the problem as a whole and not just in relation to motor cars. Legislation in this Session is still possible, but I cannot yet make a firm promise of that.

International Air Services (Glasgow)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if, in view of the unfulfilled economic demand for more international and intercontinental air services, he will permit operators to meet the requirements for air services of manufacturers and others engaged in commerce particularly in and around Glasgow; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Mr. Anthony Grant: It is a matter for the commercial judgment of the airlines whether to add to the range of services already offered.

Mr. Rankin: Does the hon. Gentleman realise how keenly Glasgow business men want direct services with their trading points in Western Europe? Surely that important demand is not to be settled merely by the existing air services, because there is now a third group of people who are ready to provide services of this nature?

Mr. Grant: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point of view; but this Government, like our predecessors, regard the rôles of Glasgow and Prestwick Airports as complementary. The major function of Glasgow Airport is to cater for short and medium-haul traffic.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. I beg to give notice that I shall pursue this matter on the Adjournment. It is a very important business matter and the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must give notice in the conventional manner.

Charter Jet Flights

Mr. Allason: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will ban the take-off and landing of charter jet flights in Great Britain between the hours of 11 p.m. and 6 a.m.

Mr. Anthony Grant: No, Sir.

Mr. Allason: Does my hon. Friend recognise the severe hardship which has to be endured by those living underneath the flight paths and the ever-increasing amount of night jet traffic? Has he no intentions of restricting night jet traffic?

Mr. Grant: I recognise this very well. I also recognise the vigour with which my hon. Friend has pursued this matter on behalf of his constituents. He will understand that our powers are very limited. We have powers over aerodromes managed by the British Airports Authority but not over those operated by local authorities, as in this case. I know that Luton Corporation is conducting inquiries into noise levels, and I hope that something that will be of satisfaction, not only to the residents of my hon. Friend's constituency, but also to those who want to travel by air, will be achieved fairly soon.

Mr. Crowder: Is my hon. Friend aware of the very difficult situation which has been created in Hertfordshire by the action of Luton Corporation? Does my hon. Friend realise that countless people are being kept awake night after night by package tours? Will my hon. Friend take powers to do something about it, because we are the Government and it is our duty to do it?

Mr. Grant: I understand that only too well. I am sure that Luton Corporation understands it only too well also. My hon. Friend will understand that we must maintain a balance between the question of aircraft noise, which is a very difficult problem, and the necessity of enabling people to fly by aeroplane.

Application of Computers to Engineering (Aldermaston Project)

Mr. Carter: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the future of the Aldermaston Project for the Application of Computers to Engineering.

Mr. Ridley: The need to continue the project at the previous level of Government support is not now apparent and its future must increasingly depend on the extent of its financial support from industry.

Mr. Carter: That Answer will cause great concern at Aldermaston. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his reply to Question No. 17, in which he said that activities carried on by public bodies which could be carried on by private enterprise should be hived off, will give extreme cause for concern to the members of the staff at Aldermaston working on this project?

Mr. Ridley: The project has done valuable work in the past, but there are increasingly more commercial concerns now doing the same sort of work. There is no reason why industry should not pay for this work, whether it is carried on in the private or in the public sector.

Consumer Consultative Organisations

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on how many bodies subject to his appointment he has appointed persons capable of representing consumers interests.

Mr. Ridley: I would refer the hon. Member to the replies which I gave to the right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) on 11th and 14th December, 1970, about the consumer consultative bodies to which we appoint members.—[Vol. 808, c. 207–8 and 242.]

Mr. Pavitt: Are there not a number of bodies where the representation has been made direct to the Consumer Council and a number of bodies where the representation has been made in consultation with the Consumer Council? Bearing this in mind, was it not cheeseparing nonsense to get rid of this worth-while body?

Mr. Ridley: The only consumer bodies to which the Department makes appointments

are in relation to the four nationalised industries on the coal, gas, electricity and iron and steel consumer councils.

Mr. Ashton: Would the Minister give an assurance that when the profitable parts of nationalised industries are hived off, a clause will be inserted insisting that the hived-off parts have consumer representation on them?

Mr. Ridley: It is not normal to have Consumer Council representation on private enterprise bodies.

Captain W. Elliot: Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way to protect the consumer interest is to encourage competition?

Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for drawing attention to the vital part which competition plays in protecting the consumer. That is probably of far greater importance than any effort the Government can make in this sphere.

Mr. Freeson: Would the hon. Gentleman at least undertake, as the decision on the Consumer Council appears to be irrevocable, to consult his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment about the possibility of encouraging local authorities to undertake or sponsor this sort of work in a much more devolved fashion throughout the country?

Mr. Ridley: At the local level there are both weights and measures inspectors and citizens' advice bureaux and they play a valuable part in this repect.

Mr. Benn: Would the hon. Gentleman make a statement or publish a White Paper indicating the Government's view on the protection of the consumer because, candidly, the answers which he has been giving about competition meeting this need simply do not apply to the majority of consumer problems, both nationally and locally? May we have an authoritative statement from him that can be debated in the House?

Mr. Ridley: I can never understand why the right hon. Gentleman constantly derides the value of competition, even if he does not believe in it in the way that we do.

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE (FUNCTIONS)

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Prior): rose—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order. I tried a little earlier to give you notice of this point of order, Mr. Speaker.
It is customary for Ministers to ask permission to make statements on rather urgent matters and for them to be given preference over other matters, but is it not a fact that details about the White Paper and of what the Minister is about to say are contained in this morning's Press and they must therefore have been given to the Press last night? Is it not an abuse of the privileges of the House for the Government to have two chances of getting good publicity, as they no doubt feel it to be, for their rather belated activities? Having dished out the information to the Press last night, should not that be good enough and should they waste the time of the House with a statement?

Mr. Speaker: Neither the decision to make a statement nor the contents of the statement is a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Dalyell: Further to that point of order. Should not the Minister be congratulated—and I mean this—on having the good sense to publish a White Paper so that we could read it before we asked questions?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Prior: Further to that point of order. I am not happy about what I have read in the Press this morning and I should like to apologise to the House for any "leaks" that may have occurred. I am having investigations made in my Department. It was exactly because I felt that right hon. and hon. Members would like to be informed in advance so that they could ask me questions on this statement that I published a White Paper this morning.

Mr. Lewis: I withdraw what I said earlier.

Mr. Prior: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make the following statement.
I propose to make certain changes in the work of my Department in order to bring it into line with the Government's objectives to reduce Government intervention and expenditure and to encourage individual initiative and self-reliance.
These changes shown in the context of the Department's overall aims and objectives are set out in a White Paper published earlier today. They affect the Department's work on all three fronts, food, agriculture and fisheries, and fall into four main groups—regulation and control, advice and research, grants and subsidies, organisation. New objectives for agricultural advisory work, their implications and the services for which charges will be made, are described in greater detail in a separate paper placed in the Library of the House.
The changes I am now proposing will lead by 1974 to annual savings of about £15 million. These will be in addition to the savings on deficiency payments that are expected from the proposed change in the support system. They could result in the staff engaged on the Department's work being reduced over the next three years by 5 to 10 per cent.
I shall be discussing the application and implementation of the changes with the organisations concerned and with the staff, through the normal Whitley channels.
While considering these administrative changes, I have seen a great deal of the work of the Department. I have been greatly impressed by its high standard. I believe that the changes I propose will ensure that my Ministry will make a more effective contribution in accordance with the Government's general philosophy.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will be making a statement in the House tomorrow on certain agricultural matters in Scotland.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the House will need to debate in full this dismal and reactionary document—[Laughter.]—which I think will have persuaded the farmers who voted Tory at the last election that they made the biggest mistake they have ever made?
Can the Minister explain why he is abolishing the North Pennines Rural Development Board after the Government


stated last July that this was a worthwhile experiment, and what other steps has he in mind to help this marginal area? Can he say how much money the Government will save by charging for the services mentioned in paragraph 14 of his White Paper? Is it not mean to introduce charges of this kind when, on the right hon. Gentleman's own admission, farmers are facing the highest costs they have ever faced? Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that in anticipation of the Review in March, those costs are already more than £100 million?
How many redundancies will result from these parsimonious cuts? What consultations has the Minister had with outside bodies, such as the N.F.U., the C.L.A. and the N.U.A.W., and what were their reactions to these miserable proposals?

Mr. Prior: The whole purpose of these changes is to make the services more cost-effective. In future my Ministry will not be prepared to give advice unless it can see a return for that advice. This is part of the Government's policy and philosophy, and it was amply stated at the election last June.
The amount of money to be collected from the charges will depend very much on how much the facilities are used. It is my belief that a lot of the services for which we are now going to charge will be taken up by private enterprise. No charge will result to the farmers and the Exchequer will make considerable saving. Our estimate of the saving is £400,000.
On the question of the Rural Development Board, I should make it plain that the Government are not turning their backs on the hills. We shall be making further proposals in the next few months. But we do not believe that the Rural Development Board was the right vehicle for carrying out this work. The ability to acquire land, either voluntarily or compulsorily, does not fit into the scheme of arrangements which we wish to make.
The matter of the costs incurred and the coming Price Review is completely separate, and any question of a debate is not for me.

Sir M. Stoddart-Scott: Does my right hon. Friend realise how welcome his statement will be in the Northern Pennines region, if it is not in Wales? What does

he intend to do with the acres of land which the Board has already nationalised?

Mr. Prior: The Board has two farms in its possession and it is arranging to sell them at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Mackintosh: Is the Minister aware that, while many richer farmers no doubt can afford to pay for advisory services, his cuts will hit precisely those marginal and weaker farmers who most need such services? Does he appreciate that in giving advice many diagnostic tests are required? It is for these that he is proposing to charge, so that the charges might well be heavy. Does he agree that many commercial firms are withdrawing from this service and that those who have stayed in often do not give fully impartial advice? They have an interest in the kind of advice which they offer which the advisory service does not have.

Mr. Prior: I do not accept the last point because the firms which are offering this advice, whether it be sampling advice or other advice, would be extremely shortsighted if they gave advice which was not correct scientifically. Therefore, I reject altogether what the hon. Gentleman says. Small farmers will be able to seek advice provided they are progressive and provided my staff feels that the advice it can give is cost effective and can be taken up. No charge is being instituted for advice. These moves will make for a better advisory service, and certainly a better trained and more skilled advisory service, which in the long run will be of great benefit to the industry.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I am sure that the whole industry will be only too ready to support the Minister in achieving cost effectiveness in administration, but does he recognise that the matters most concerning the industry at the moment are imports from Eastern European countries and a fair return from the market? The Minister will be expected to ensure in the Price Review that a great improvement is made on those two fronts.

Mr. Prior: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's advice and help. I am aware of the points that he has made and I have no doubt that they will be taken into consideration at the Price Review.

Mr. Peart: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Northern Pennine Rural Development Board was supported


by a great cross-section of northern farming opinion, even by people who, if I may use the right hon. Gentleman's phraseology in the White Paper, had sympathy for the Government's philosophy? Indeed, he himself and his colleagues did not oppose this when it was put forward to the House a long time ago. Why is the right hon. Gentleman doing this? Why is he prejudicing something which would give help to large sections of the farming community? Is he aware that his decision to attack the Advisory Service will not have the support of large sections of the farming community? Did he consult the National Farmers' Union and other responsible bodies? Is he aware that his decision will create dismay in the scientific world?

Mr. Prior: I completely reject the right hon. Gentleman's last remarks. I do not for a moment believe that it will cause dismay in the scientific world, nor in the farming world either.
As to consultations, I have been in touch with the National Farmers' Union, the County Land Owners' Association and the National Union of Agricultural Workers, and I have explained what I intend to do. Full consultations are not possible in advance of the publication of the White Paper, and it is for them to say whether they agree or disagree. All I am saying is that I am certain that my decision is in the interests not only of the farming community but of the nation as a whole.
As to the Northern Pennine Rural Development Board, I could not see any sense in keeping in operation a board whose compulsory powers of land acquisition I was not prepared to support. To spend £67,000 as it did last year on providing about £4,000 worth of actual material help to the area did not seem a very good return for money. At the same time, I pay tribute to the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Board for the work that they did.

Sir Clive Bossom: Will my right hon. Friend make a further announcement about bull licensing, which is so important to the industry and to the export market?

Mr. Prior: Yes, Sir. I hope to be in a position to make an announcement in the very near future.

Mr. Roderick: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Agricultural Advisory Service has revealed widespread damage to soil structure and is advocating more soil testing, and that under these new proposals farmers will be charged for this service? How does the Minister think this will affect the small farmer? No doubt, the large farmer can bear the cost, but does he not agree that agriculture will deteriorate unless the small farmer receives this service free?

Mr. Prior: Ample facilities are available for the sampling of soil at no cost whatsoever to the farmer, and the small and large farmer can take full advantage of them. There is nothing in the White Paper which is in any way inconsistent with the report on soil structure published earlier last week.

Mr. Peter Mills: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that many small farmers will welcome his announcement? Does he not agree that some functions of the Ministry have become too top-heavy a burden and are unnecessary? Does he not also agree that in this new-found freedom agriculture will be able to market its products far more freely in the future?

Mr. Prior: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. I respect his advice on farming matters more than I respect some of the advice which is tendered to me by some hon. Members opposite.
The question of marketing is important and one that I am fully prepared to consider with the National Farmers' Union and other bodies.

Mr. Thorpe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we share his concern at the prior leakage of these details and that we shall need time to consider them—the same sort of time which apparently has been enjoyed by others already?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is the small farmers in the hill and marginal areas who benefit most from advisory services, and that those services have greatly contributed to making units viable, and have made contributions to the economy of this country? Can the right hon. Gentleman say what guarantees they will have that they will be able to obtain advice? Is he aware that we have built up in this country a very skilled body of advisers many of whom have been induced to take prolonged courses for


the benefit of the agricultural community? What guarantee is there that they will not be lost to the community at large?

Mr. Prior: I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is the small hill farmers who have made most use of the advice available. In fact, they have not been amongst those who have taken most advice.
On the question of the Advisory Service generally, our proposals will result in a cut in the establishment of between 5 per cent. and 10 per cent. over three years. Most of this can be carried out by natural wastage, but there will have to be some redundancies and we shall make these as reasonable and as easy as possible.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on. Mr. Chataway.

POST OFFICE WORKERS (DISPUTE)

The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications (Mr. Christopher Chataway): The House will know, and will share the Government's regret, that the Union of Post Office Workers, which represents some two hundred thousand postal workers and telecommunications operators, has, with some dispensations to which I will refer later, called a total strike from Wednesday. The House will wish to be informed of the background to this grave development and of its effects.
The union has claimed a minimum wage increase for virtually all its grades of 15 per cent. from 1st January. The total claim is equivalent to an overall increase of 19½ per cent. The Post Office has made an offer of 8 per cent., and, bearing in mind the serious financial position of the postal services, it feels it cannot go beyond this. It has also asked the union to join with the Post Office in referring the dispute to arbitration. Under a recently-concluded agreement, the union is obliged to accept this request. But regrettably it has rejected it.
In consequence, some letter and all parcel services have already been suspended, and the remainder will be suspended this evening. All inland and Post Office international telegram services will have

to be suspended from mid-day tomorrow. Main post offices will not normally open, but limited counter services—including Giro deposit and withdrawal—will continue at sub-post offices. The Post Office will attempt to deliver "life and death" telegrams but cannot guarantee delivery. Telephone services involving Post Office operators, including directory inquiries, personal calls, and so on, and some Telex services, will be subject to suspension, curtailment or delay. Automatic services—local, S.T.D., I.S.D. and Telex—will continue. Special arrangements are being made with co-operation from the union, to assist pensioners and allowance holders and to operate maritime services, 999 and other emergency telephone services. Pension allowance orders dated up to the end of January may be cashed forthwith; if the normal office is closed, a pensioner may use another office which is open.
Customers can help themselves and the Post Office by keeping their telephone calls short and by avoiding non-urgent calls during business hours; this is because the automatic services are bound to be heavily congested during business periods.
I have given the Post Office a general authority under the terms of the Post Office Act, 1969, enabling it to waive the monopoly provisions of that Act as they affect postal services and the Post Office will deal with individual cases on their merits with the aim of being as helpful as possible. Many traders will make their own arrangements for the delivery of urgent letters, but this is not likely to involve any infringement of the monopoly.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has arranged for representatives of the union and of the Post Office separately to see officials of his Department in the course of today in order that he may be fully informed of the respective points of view.
The responsibility for the negotiations with the postal workers lies with the Post Office and I have every confidence in its judgment in handling this extremely difficult situation. There is no question that the union has the capacity to inflict great damage on the country and great hardship to individuals, but I hope that even at this stage it may be prepared to abide by its agreement and go to arbitration.

Mr. Richard: I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman could tell us why there is such meagre recognition on the part of the Government that Post Office workers are grossly underpaid, even allowing for overtime? Why do not the Government accept the fact that any rational, sensible set of criteria must be based upon that single fact, and that if this dispute is to be settled that has to be recognised and taken account of in any settlement? Would the right hon. Gentleman confirm that it is a fact that the Union of Post Office Workers volunteered its co-operation in providing emergency services? Is he not, therefore, in the terms in which he has referred to the union in his statement, being much less than generous to the union?
Then, as he told us this afternoon that the Post Office had authority enabling it to waive the monopoly provisions under the Post Office Act, can he say what he envisages as a result of that permission? A sort of national pirate post office operating its own services? Is he going to issue stamps for this pirate post office? How is it going to guarantee the security of the mail? [Laughter.] Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite may laugh, but if I am being asked to pay two bob for a letter one of the things I want to know is whether or not its transmission is going to be secure. Would the right hon. Gentleman not recognise and agree that if Post Office facilities are to be used by those pirates who are to come in and try to deal with the mail that, in itself, will be grossly provocative and, indeed, can only exacerbate an already difficult situation?
Does the Minister not know that the unions do not accept that they are under any legal obligation to go to arbitration? Does he not also recognise that, in any event, the Government have devalued arbitration by their behaviour when the Scamp inquiry report was published; so it is hardly surprising that another group of lower paid workers in the public sector should feel that arbitration cannot be either impartial or fair?
Finally, may I say to the right hon. Gentleman that we welcome such talks as are taking place this afternoon? Would he confirm that those talks are meant to be an exercise of the conciliation powers of the Department of Employment and not merely an information gathering exercise?

Mr. Chataway: The talks by my right hon. Friend are to enable my right hon. Friend to be fully informed about the position of both sides. As to the monopoly provisions, there is no question of running a national service. There has never been any suggestion of that whatever. There cannot, of course, be a guarantee of the same standards, but it would be foolish for the Post Office not to relax its monopoly in a situation in which it is prevented from continuing its services.
As for the payment of postal workers, there is in the community an enormous amount of good will for postal workers on the part of many people who realise that, in many respects, our postal services are the best in the world, but it certainly cannot be argued that postal workers are among the lowest paid. The average earnings of postmen in the country—

An Hon. Member: For 60 hours.

Mr. Chataway: —is at the moment £25 3s. 8d. [Interruption.] If I am allowed to continue, under the 8 per cent. offer which has already been made those average earnings would be for postmen £27 4s. and the average amount of overtime—since this point has been raised—is 7½ hours. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]
As for arbitration, the agreement was entered into only on 27th August last year. The agreement is absolutely clear. It is that if either party to a dispute asks for arbitration the other is bound to agree. The Post Office Union signed that agreement last August. A chairman, as the hon. Gentleman knows, can be appointed by my right hon. Friend at any moment. At any moment he can appoint a chairman if the Post Office Union is prepared to go to arbitration, and I believe that the vast majority of people will agree that it is highly irresponsible to plunge the country into potential chaos when arbitration arrangements of this sort exist.

Mr. Turton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is anxiety lest the services of sub-post offices in rural areas which normally draw their funds for pensions and allowances by post from head offices may be interrupted? Can he today give an assurance that means will be provided so that those sub-post offices have sufficient funds to pay out pensions and allowances to pension and allowance holders?

Mr. Chataway: My right hon. Friend is entirely right—this is a matter of concern. I am assured by the Post Office that it will make every effort to try to ensure that funds are available in all those sub-post offices for essential payments, but it would be wrong to conceal that there are bound to be cases of hardship because, despite the arrangements with the Post Office Union to which the hon. Gentleman referred, the sub-post offices still rely, as my right hon. Friend has said, upon postal services for obtaining essential books and vouchers.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this afternoon he is sitting within 30 ft. of the leader of the responsible Union of Post Office Workers, and is he not further aware that the nation will think it remarkable that, despite the fact that he is in such close proximity, he has not so far found time to talk with the leader of this responsible union? May I make a plea to him, even at this late stage, to invite Mr. Jackson and the chairman and officers of the Union of Post Office Workers to get round the table with the Minister and representatives of the Post Office Board to try to resolve this very difficult and contentious issue?
Is he further aware—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—that this afternoon he spoke of serious financial difficulties facing the Post Office Corporation but that those serious financial difficulties have in some way arisen because of faulty financial forecasting of the Post Office Board—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—and is he not aware further that £52 million would have been available to meet this claim—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has asked several supplementary questions already. Let him allow the Minister to answer them.

Mr. Chataway: As the hon. Member knows probably better than most, the responsibility for the negotiations rest, of course, with the Post Office under the Post Office Act. That is the position.
He also knows that procedure exists for an arbitration tribunal. There would be three members; one from a panel of people chosen by the union; one from a panel of people proposed by the Post Office Board; and one after consultation

with both sides by my right hon. Friend. The hon. Member will probably know, too, that arbitration awards have already been made in the last few months to engineers and higher executive officers of the Post Office and that these have been favourable to the union. In fact, in the case of the higher executive officers, their full claim was met. So there the machinery exists. What we are asking is that the U.P.W. should honour its agreement and go to arbitration.
As for the hon. Member's other question about serious financial difficulties, the Post Office has made it absolutely clear that if it were to accept the claim of the U.P.W. it would amount to 19½ per cent. and that for anything like that it would be necessary to introduce a first-class letter rate of at least 9d. before the end of next year. The Post Office Board believes that, on top of the very large tariff increases that have already been announced, this would have a serious effect on traffic and probably, therefore, upon employment.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Does the Minister realise that, popular as postmen are in the community, and quite rightly so, we are now in a situation where every sectional interest has to be subordinated to the national interest of halting inflation which, if allowed to continue, will prove disastrous to everyone?

Mr. Chataway: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the general importance of halting inflationary wage settlements. It is, however, the particular circumstances of the Post Office which have led the Post Office Board to make this offer of 8 per cent. which, following the agreement last year of 12 per cent., it believes to be a reasonable offer.

Mr. Mikardo: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that if, contrary to current expectations, the matter goes to arbitration, the tribunal will be chaired by a former Conservative candidate and include a declared anti-trade unionist who is a notable contributor to Conservative Party election funds?

Mr. Chataway: I have already described the agreed procedures for appointing the tribunal. These are procedures which were freely agreed between unions and management last August.

Mr. James Hill: Is my right hon. Friend aware that 12,000 members of the Telecommunications Staff Association within the Post Office Corporation will not be going on strike but will continue to carry out their night and day services? They are most concerned that the public should have knowledge of this because they say that they are members of a responsible registered trade union whose feelings have to be considered.

Mr. Chataway: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I am sure the House will have taken note of the information he has given.

Mr. Orme: Is the Minister aware that his statement about arbitration is nothing short of humbug? The lower-paid workers have taken to heart the words which the Government have uttered since the election. They will stand on their own feet and fight for a decent wage for lower paid workers. If one forgets the percentage, what these people are talking about is between £2 and £3 a week on wages of between £14 and £17 a week—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—I am talking about net incomes. We are told by the Minister that the workers should accept lower standards, but they are fully aware that they are of vital importance to the nation—as were the refuse collectors and electricity workers—and should be paid accordingly. Is the Minister aware that only recently this House voted large increases for High Court judges, yet decent wages are refused for people who are the backbone of the nation?

Mr. Chataway: The hon. Gentleman is entirely mistaken in the income figures that lie has given. I have given the average earnings of postmen, which are just over £25. For postal and telegraph officers, another major category covered, the average earnings are £27 19s., and 8 per cent. has already been offered. These people cannot be described as among the lowest paid workers in the community. The Post Office Board has made it absolutely clear that it is quite willing to negotiate, within its overall 8 per cent. offer, something more than this for those at the lower end of the wage scale.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Since in the arbitration procedure two out of the three members of the tribunal are the appointees of the parties and the objection can

only come to the possible lack of neutrality in the chairman, will my right hon. Friend say whether there has been discussion between the parties as to a chairman, and whether it is possible to find somebody of a demonstrably neutral character to take the chair so that justice can manifestly be seen to be done?

Mr. Chataway: Unfortunately, the union has ruled out arbitration altogether, and there have therefore been no discussions of that kind, but I believe that the majority of those involved would have considerable confidence in my right hon. Friend being able to choose a fair chairman. [Interruption.] If there were no confidence on the part of the General Secretary it is a little strange that he should be photographed through the weekend apparently waiting on the end of the telephone for an intervention by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Golding: Is the Minister aware that many Post Office workers have read with interest of the settlement at Chryslers of 18 per cent. last week? Is he further aware that postmen, electricity workers and nurses are watching the creation under this Government, as occurred before 1964, of a widening gap between workers in the public sector and the private sector? Is the Minister further aware that when the Post Office engineers went to arbitration during the last Tory wage freeze the settlement was not honoured, and that there is great disillusion throughout the public sector about the chance of getting a fair hearing at an arbitration or an industrial tribunal?

Mr. Chataway: Under the recently agreed procedure of arbitration, the award would be binding on both sides. The hon. Gentleman has adduced some arguments, and if he feels that there are strong arguments for a higher offer to be made by the Post Office, surely this would constitute one further argument for trying to persuade his friends to go to arbitration.

Mr. Warren: Will the Minister, whilst taking account of the fact that we all like our courteous, friendly postmen, make the union leaders aware that productivity in the Post Office has been decreasing over the last two years? Once again the public is being asked to pay and is getting heartily fed up.

Mr. Chataway: It is true that on the postal services there has been a decrease in productivity, as my hon. Friend has said. I agree that there is tremendous good will for the postal workers, but if this strike goes ahead—and I hope it will not—I believe that it will be regarded by the public as perhaps the "ninepenny letter" strike, because that would be the implication of awarding the claim in full.

Mr. Spriggs: On the question of a meeting between the right hon. Gentleman and the General Secretary of the U.P.W., is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if he will agree to meet the General Secretary this will be seen by the whole nation as an attempt by him to get a balanced point of view?

Mr. Chataway: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am not the Postmaster-General, nor am I in the position that the Postmaster-General was in. The negotiations lie between the postal workers and the Board, and I have outlined the arrangements agreed between both sides for resolving disputes of this kind.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if this unnecessary strike proceeds the public will be greatly inconvenienced and will want to know precisely why the Union of Post Office Workers has refused to go into the recently agreed arbitration procedure. Is there no method by which my right hon. Friend can get the parties to get down to agreeing a chairman so that the matter may proceed in the recognised way?

Mr. Chataway: I can only hope that discussions which both sides are having with officials of the Department of Employment will serve to persuade all concerned that the arbitration machinery should be used.

Mr. Richard: Since the right hon. Gentleman has castigated the union—I would have thought unfairly—for not going to arbitration, is it not a fact that the agreement in relation to arbitration envisaged the appointment of a permanent chairman? Is it not also a fact that, prior to this dispute having arisen, no permanent chairman had been appointed and that the union was not prepared to accept a temporary chairman appointed

by the right hon. Gentleman because it did not think he would be fair and impartial?

Mr. Chataway: I have explained to the hon. Gentleman how recent is the agreement between the two parties, and I have explained that if there is a willingness to use arbitration machinery my right hon. Friend is prepared to appoint the chairman. I have also given recent examples of the way in which arbitration in these circumstances has been used by the Post Office and of the results—results which have not been unfavourable to the unions concerned.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot continue—

Mrs. Castle: On a point of order. Might I through you, Mr. Speaker, ask the Leader of the House if tomorrow, in view of the imminence of this strike, the Secretary of State for Employment would make a statement to the House on what his Department has done to avert the strike?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): I have no doubt my right hon. Friend will have heard what the right hon. Lady has said. I will have discussions with him and, if it is appropriate to make a statement tomorrow, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will wish to do so.

Mr. Atkinson: Further to that point of order. I have no desire, Mr. Speaker, to challenge your Ruling in any way, but is it not unusual, in the absence of some assurance about a further statement being made, for the Speaker to move on to the next business when so many hon. Members are on their feet wishing to ask questions, especially bearing in mind that this evening's business is open-ended? Is it not the usual practice to conclude questions only if there is a time limit on the debate that is to follow? In this case, with an open-ended debate to come, surely it would have been reasonable to call another half dozen or a dozen hon. Members to ask questions.

Mr. Molloy: Further to that point of order. May I support my hon. Friend


the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) in asking you, Mr. Speaker, to consider what he has said. The country is facing a serious situation and for the House to have spent only about 25 minutes in discussing a statement by the Minister must mean that quite a number of points of view will not have been heard and that a number of suggestions which might have been made will not be able to be considered by the Minister? In that case, Mr. Speaker, would you not consider that the House be allowed further time to examine this very serious situation?

Mr. Speaker: The Speaker is in a difficult position in these matters in that he must exercise his own judgment. I allowed about 27 minutes for the statement and questions upon it, I also had regard to the possibility raised by the right hon. Lady of a statement being made tomorrow, and I have decided the matter.
The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day — INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

Clause 1

GENERAL PRINCIPLES

The Chairman: The first Amendment which has been selected is No. 367 and it may be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss with it Amendment No. 345: in page 1, line 10, after 'freely', insert 'democratically'.

4.15 p.m.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: I beg to move Amendment No. 367, in page 1, line 10, leave out from 'of' to end of line 11 and insert 'orderly and freely conducted collective bargaining on a voluntary basis'.
May I begin by saying how glad we are that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Employment is fit to be with us this afternoon.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mrs. Castle: We congratulate him on surviving two physical hazards, though I am afraid we cannot guarantee that he will survive a third political hazard that lies ahead of him, namely, the passage of this Bill. Indeed, we shall do our best to ensure that he does not. But our weapon will not be force; it will be argument. We hope that the Government will not use force against us by trying to railroad this Bill through without proper discussion. We had enough of that in the debates on the Consultative Document and on the Second Reading of the Bill, when the right hon. Gentleman and the Solicitor-General time and again refused to answer any of our questions on specific points. We hope that they will now give us the arguments and the answers for which so far we have asked in vain.
We think that this is a bad Bill and that it ought not to reach the Statute Book. We want a full democratic chance to explain to the country why it should not do so. I make it clear to the right


hon. Gentleman that we shall not filibuster during this Committee stage. We shall not move Amendments for amendment sake. We believe that this is far too serious an issue. But in return we shall expect the Government not to evade our points and not to curtail discussion which is essential if the country is to understand what this Bill is all about. They certainly do not understand what it is about at present because the Government have refused to enlighten them.
Clause 1(1)(a), which I am seeking to amend, sets out the first of the principles which the Bill is designed to embody and which the right hon. Gentleman says will promote good industrial relations. This is an important provision. The Clause sets the framework of the whole Bill and is typical of the Government's handling of this industrial relations issue. The subsection sets up a whole string of apparently impeccable generalisations. Yet each word is of significance in terms of the Government's philosophy and plan of action. This is why we need to scrutinise the Clause extremely carefully.
It is important to remember that these principles are to be embodied in a code of practice, and it will be seen by subsection (2) that they are to be taken as guiding principles by the Secretary of State, the Commission on Industrial Relations, the Chief Registrar of Trade Unions and the whole panoply of courts to be set up under the Bill in performing their functions under this Act.
In the first place, I would regard it as a bad principle for a generalised code of this kind to be regarded as something which cannot be specifically enforced by law, but can be used by the Secretary of State in discharging his administrative functions in promoting good industrial relations and, in particular, by the judges in assessing fines. Therefore, the implications of the wording are very important.
Let us look carefully at subsection (1,a). Again it embodies the impeccable principle of
collective bargaining freely and responsibly conducted;
But what does that mean in intention and effect? In the debate on the Consultative Document, the right hon. Gentleman said that one of the fundamental beliefs on which the legislation was to be based was that

… the best and probably the only way of determining pay and conditions of work in a free society is by a voluntary system of negotiation, free from State control …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November, 1970; Vol. 807, c. 632.]
That has a hollow ring in the context of the exchanges we have just had about the postal workers' dispute.
The right hon. Gentleman has always maintained that this principle forms the big difference between his Government and the former Labour Government. The present Government believe that collective bargaining should be entirely free from Government interference. The right hon. Gentleman has always argued for setting collective bargaining free and concentrating on more orderly procedures in industry for the peaceful settlement of disputes. That is the fundamental belief which was spelt out to us a few months ago.
This subsection is presumably an embodiment of this principle. But is it? It says that collective bargaining should be freely conducted, but only if it is responsibly conducted. But the right hon. Gentleman knows that the great philosophic issue which was supposed to be the divide between us is: responsible to whom? Does it mean responsible to the interests of a union's members, which is what a system free from State control means; or is it to be responsible to something else and, if so, what? I remind the House again that we are not just discussing platitudes where it does not matter if we get their significance right. We are discussing a Clause which is contributing to the sanctions under the Bill.
We know how the so-called voluntary system of negotiations has been operating under this Government. In the dock strike, for example, the right hon. Gentleman pretended that he believed in this principle and intended to operate it. That is why at a time when we were on the edge of a strike which could have been avoided the right hon. Gentleman said that he would not intervene and attempt to get a settlement because it was not his job to lean on employers or unions. The right hon. Gentleman abandoned that pretence a long time ago. Everyone knows that the Government are now throwing their full weight on the employers not to yield to wage demands.
The Government have not been having spectacular success with private industry, I will be the first to admit. We have heard today of the recent wage award of £5 in the Chrysler section of the motor industry. In public employment, however, we now have the most determined pressure by the Government to hold down wages and an overt admission that that is their policy. The pressure is all the more sinister because it is not based on any clearly defined criterion with the Government saying that they were wrong and that we cannot afford as a country not to lean on employers to resist wage increases. It is not done by the Government saying that their policy for dealing with inflation is getting us nowhere and that we should discuss how to alter it. We have no debates in Parliament and no chance for effective examination of the new criteria. Instead, the right hon. Gentleman's pressure is now being exercised through the withdrawal of his Department's traditional conciliation services and the deliberate undermining of the principles of arbitration to which the Government pay so much lip-service. The result is that industrial relations are becoming not more orderly but increasing disorderly. We had the local government manual workers' strike—

Mr. Raymond Gower: If any Government are asking employers in the private sector to act with restraint, care and responsibility, is it not impossible for the Government's request to be treated with respect if they do not seek to do the same in the sector where they have a direct influence? Faced with a similar case, would not the right hon. Lady's Government have acted in the same way?

Mrs. Castle: I am saying that we now have a deliberate unilateral sectional attack by the Government upon the standard of living of their own employees. It is a deliberate piece of policy which is totally inconsistent with the principle which the right hon. Gentleman pretends to enunciate in Clause 1(1)(a) of the Bill.
The local government manual workers' strike again could have been avoided by the use of the Department's conciliation services. That dispute cost the country 800,000 working days. They were lost deliberately by the Government. It is nauseating hypocrisy for any spokesman

of the Government to wring his hands over the 10 million working days lost last year when we know that the Government's policy is deliberately to precipitate strikes that could have been avoided as part of a show-down designed to undermine the voluntary system of collective bargaining—

Mr. Gower: Poppycock!

Mrs. Castle: That strike could have been avoided by the right hon. Gentleman setting up a court of inquiry. He refused to do so, with the result that the parties themselves set up a court of inquiry.
We are discussing the Government's professed belief in a voluntary system of collective bargaining free from State control. Here were the two sides of an industry saying that the situation was absurd and that they should agree on a court of inquiry. They did so. They agreed on its membership and its chairmanship, and they also agreed to abide by the court's findings.
The findings of the Scamp inquiry were produced. They ended the strike. However, the one party to that process which has never abided by those findings is the Government. The Scamp inquiry committed the unpardonable crime of proving that the emperor had no anti-inflationary Clothes and that it is impossible to solve the problem of inflation by picking first on one section and then on another without regard to the overall picture or any kind of coherent criterion and trying to deal with the wage claim by whatever pressure that the Government can bring to bear.
4.30 p.m.
Following the Scamp inquiry the Government decided that they had better have a change of tactics in this situation. We saw that change of tactics in operation in the power workers' strike. The Government were afraid that something similar might eventually happen, so they decided, when they thought that just enough damage had been done to alienate public opinion, to set up a court of inquiry. But how heavily they leaned upon the unions regarding both the terms of reference and the chairmanship, and even, I suggest, regarding their own representative. Is the right hon. Gentleman telling the Committee that the first recommendation by the unions for their representative was accepted by him?

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Carr): For the sake of the record, I think that the Committee, as well as the right hon. Lady, should know that the unions put forward three names which were acceptable, and one was chosen.

Mrs. Castle: Did the right hon. Gentleman take their first choice? Are we talking about freedom from State control or are we not? The right hon. Gentleman knows that we are doing nothing of the kind. He knows perfectly well that the unions and workers feel that the Wilberforce court of inquiry was set up with the determination that a certain result should be achieved.
If the right hon. Gentleman wants to know why the postal workers are refusing to go to arbitration now, it is the deliberate development of Government interventionist policy between the Scamp inquiry and the Wilberforce inquiry.

Mr. R. Carr: Then I wonder why, as was pointed out earlier, the leader of the Union of Post Office Workers is so anxious for the services of my Department if it is so distrusted, as the right hon. Lady has just made out.

Mrs. Castle: Because the leader of the Post Office workers believes, as I believe, that the right hon. Gentleman has a responsibility to carry out his traditional statutory duty to conciliate. I am not talking about the Post Office workers merely wanting to talk to the right hon. Gentleman about arbitration; they want to ask him to behave as he claimed in the docks strike he ought to behave.

The Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Lady. I think that there could be a tendency to relate the debate too much to an individual matter like the threatened Post Office strike. I must ask the right hon. Lady to help me as much as she can by keeping strictly to the terms of the Amendment and not to go too far outside into what I know is very much in the minds of all right hon. and hon. Members at the moment.

Mrs. Castle: I do not want to stray out of order, but I assure you, Sir Robert, that this is absolutely central to my argument about the Clause. If you will

allow me to take this a sentence further, you will see why that is so.
I am not dealing with just one particular threatened strike; I am dealing with a principle in which the right hon. Gentleman pretends to believe which is supposed to be embodied in the Bill. I am dealing with the word "responsibly" in Clause 1(1)(a). What do the Government mean when they say that they will embody in the Act the guiding principle that collective bargaining must be conducted responsibly? The Wilberforce Inquiry is central to that. The Government only agreed to set up an inquiry provided that they obtained the kind of membership, which one of my hon. Friends described earlier this afternoon, and terms of reference compelling the inquiry to take account of the national interest.
I asked earlier: what is meant by the word "responsibly"? Responsible to whom? Responsible to the interests of their members, or to something else? By their actions, the Government have shown that collective bargaining responsibly conducted means conducted in accordance with the Government's definition of "responsibly"; in other words, the Government's injection of the term, "the national interest".
The right hon. Gentleman might say, "Does anybody object to that?" But it is the direct opposite of what the right hon. Gentleman is professing to be embodied in the Bill. Indeed, because the right hon. Gentleman denies that he is embodying it in the Bill, we have never discussed in the House what should be the definition of "the national interest" in dealing with a particular claim. By including the word "responsibly" we are asked to give carte blanche to the Government to lean on one side in collective bargaining to get the result which they think they ought to have in their economic policy.
We now have the fantastic situation of an inquiry dealing with an important body of workers who have recently inevitably been involved in an important dispute with terms of reference not being defined by the House but being defined by Treasury officials. The definition of "the national interest", what is, therefore, behaving "responsibly", has not been given to us by Ministers. They are still hiding behind the


pretence of the words in the Clause. They are still afraid to come into the open and admit that what they are operating is an incomes policy. They are afraid to define that to the country, because it would mean eating all the words which they used so freely before—

Mr. Michael Fidler: rose—

Mrs. Castle: I am sorry. I have a theme here which hangs together and I must be allowed to deploy it. If there is a chance later I will give way to the hon. Gentleman. I am in the middle of this thread of the argument.
What was the Treasury evidence which was put to the Wilberforce Committee? A full report was given in The Times on 15th January. That report states:
The Treasury memorandum submitted yesterday to the Court of Inquiry into the electricity pay dispute argues that the current inflationary spiral can only be broken by reducing the level of wage settlements.
I repeat, "only be broken". This, therefore, is what the Government mean by "collective bargaining … responsibly conducted".

Mr. Fidler: indicated assent.

Mrs. Castle: The hon. Gentleman nods. Let us have that admitted by the right hon. Gentleman.
I remind the Committee that a very different type of argument was used by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite during the election campaign of last June and was deployed by the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) when he was angling for power in those weeks before the election. For it was he who, on Thames T.V. on 30th April, said:
I think you are being unfair to the unions and to the workers in saying that this price explosion is due to a wage explosion.
Unfair to the workers to say that our inflationary spiral can only be broken by reducing the level of wage settlements? Every right hon. and hon. Member knows that this was not the argument on which the election campaign was fought and won, and it would not have been won if it had been. We had a very different line of argument then by the right hon. Member for Bexley, who said:
You cannot blame workers for asking for wage increases.

Why? Because the wicked Labour Government had put burdens on them as a result of devaluation—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I do not mind. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite can say, "Hear, hear". But this is not the argument which the Government are now using. The Government are not saying, "You cannot blame the workers because they are trying to defend themselves against an inflationary situation." During the Election campaign right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite said that workers were understandably reacting to price increases which the right hon. Member for Bexley thought it was a priority to reduce "at a stroke". Instead, we have a total abandonment of any attempt to influence prices and we have a new Treasury doctrine that we can only have—

The Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Lady again, but prices and incomes are not strictly germane to the debate.

Mrs. Castle: I am extremely sorry, Sir Robert. As you know, I am the most orderly Member of the House. I assure you that what I am asking the Committee to look at is the first principle which we are told to accept in the very first subsection of the Bill, which is to form the guiding principle for the rest of the Bill. The principle is that we ought to have collective bargaining freely and responsibly conducted. I am trying to find out what that means, and I am adducing evidence that, despite the right hon. Gentleman's earlier words, the Government's actions show that to conduct collective bargaining responsibly means that one shall not be free to press whatever wage increases one can get, which is contrary to the impression that has been given hitherto.

Mr. Fidler: I am obliged to the right hon. Lady for giving way, because she seized on my nod as a peg on which to hang a comment. I am trying to follow what she is saying. Is she arguing that no Government should be expected to ask that the national economic interest is borne in mind in interpreting responsibility?

Mrs. Castle: Of course I am not. All I am saying is that the right hon. Gentleman's statement on the Consultative Document was that the Bill would be


based on three fundamental beliefs, the first of which, as I have already quoted to the House, was that "the best and probably the only way of determining pay and conditions of work in a free society was by a voluntary system of negotiations free from State control."
What I am trying to prove to the Committee is that the Government are operating the exact opposite, and that if we allow this word "responsible" to go through in this subsection we shall endorse, not the right hon. Gentleman's words on the Consultative Document, but the exact opposite. I am suggesting to the Committee that, in the context of a Bill the purpose of which is said to be to promote good industrial relations, this is a vital starting point because, against the background of the treatment of the Scamp inquiry, and against the background of what is happening over the Wilberforce inquiry, how can anybody in the House wonder that the Post Office workers are refusing to go to arbitration? They would be fools to do it, because they would be going into an arbitration system—[Interruption.] They would be fools to do it unless there is a greater demonstration by the right hon. Gentleman that he is genuinely trying to avoid this strike by using his traditional conciliation services.
We have had a perfunctory reference to it, but the right hon. Gentleman is not concerned enough about it to volunteer a statement. The matter has been dealt with by a Minister who is no longer even responsible for the day-to-day activities of the Post Office. We have had a statement designed to colour the whole background to the matter and to suggest that once again callous workers will plunge innocent people into unnecessary suffering.
The Minister has jeered at the General Secretary of the Post Office workers for saying, "I am sitting and waiting for a telephone call from the Secretary of State for Employment to ask us to meet him so that he can exercise his traditional rôle of conciliation". Instead of intervening to do that officials of the right hon. Gentleman's Department have had to tell the Post Office workers' union that the Minister is not available, that he is too busy with the Industrial Relations Bill. He is so busy imposing a legislative

framework for industrial relations that he does not have time to try to stop another strike.
I say to the Committee that the Government's policy, as indicated by the word "responsible" in this subsection, is even now causing unnecessary strike after unnecessary strike, and that thousands of working days are being lost because the Government have not the courage to face the facts and say that they believe they were wrong in their previous policy and want to change it. Instead of that, we have this back-door method, and we have Government spokesmen speaking with different voices.
Every time the Chancellor of the Exchequer opens his mouth the real policy of the Government comes clearly through. The one villain of the piece, says the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and he said it again only a few days ago—is the level of wage settlements. That is the only cause of inflation according to the right hon. Gentleman. There is none other. It is due to none of the things mentioned during the Election campaign. Prices have nothing to do with it. Government taxation policy has nothing to do with it. Increases in social service charges have nothing to do with it.
4.45 p.m.
The Prime Minister, when he was Leader of the Opposition, said during a television programme on 30th April that workers were reacting to deliberate Government actions that had put up their cost of living. What does the right hon. Gentleman think they are reacting to now if it is not to deliberate Government actions which are putting up their cost of living by increases in rents, food prices, school meals, prescription charges and the whole level of other social service charges? Are not these inflationary? Economist after economist has said that they are, but they are not according to the Chancellor.
Speaking to the City of London the other day, the Chancellor said again that the only answer to our inflationary spiral is to bring down the level of wage settlements, and it is this—

Mr. Edward Gardner: rose—

Mrs. Castle: I am sorry. I have already given away a number of times. We are in Committee and the hon. and


learned Gentleman will have an opportunity to make his own speech. I do not want to take up too much time, because I know that many of my hon. Friends wish to speak to this very important Amendment.
We are seeking to amend the subsection in the way that I have outlined because there is a fundamental contradiction embodied in the Bill and it was spelt out very tellingly in the leading article in The Observer last Sunday, when it said:
The main target of Mr. Carr's Industrial Relations Bill, apart from greater individual protection, is, the Government claims, to reduce unofficial strikes and to strengthen the hand of responsible union leadership in collective bargaining. Mr. Barber's aim, on the other hand, as confirmed by the Treasury's evidence to the Wilberforce court of inquiry into the electric power workers' dispute, is to induce or compel the official trade unions to reduce their wage demands.
We are seeking to amend the subsection in the way that I have outlined because we believe that the Government are being hypocritical and are riding two horses. We seek to amend the subsection because we believe that the Government are defining the word "responsible" in ways that are deliberately increasing the threat and incidence of strikes. We want to make this alteration in the other Amendment to which reference has been made because the policy that it enunciates—

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: Having dealt with the deletion of the word "responsible" from the Bill, can the right hon. Lady now say what she means about putting in the word "voluntary" because it seems that that word will deprive the Bill of its effect in enforcing employers to negotiate under agreements?

Mrs. Castle: Honestly, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has understood the Bill, though I cannot blame him for that. He will have to take a lot of time off to understand it, though whether he will be any wiser when his right hon. Friends have finished with him I very much doubt.
We are talking about the principle on which the Government won votes by pretending they believed in it; the principle of flee collective bargaining or, as the right hon. Gentleman put it earlier, freedom

from State control. By the words in the Amendment we seek to make explicit the right hon. Gentleman's pretensions.

Mr. R. T. Paget: As a matter of construction, how does my right hon. Friend say that "freely" means something different from "on a voluntary basis"?

Mrs. Castle: My hon. and learned Friend can choose his own semantics. I am satisfied that it is essential to insert these words because we have not got things on a voluntary basis now. We have Government interference with the employers in the public field, and we want to stop that Government interference there because it contradicts—

Mr. Iremonger: What the right hon. Lady is really saying by the words she seeks to insert is that "voluntary" means "irresponsible".

Mrs. Castle: There are certain hon. Members on whom one's most careful explanations are wasted, so I shall not burden the hon. Gentleman with a repetition of what I said. I merely repeat that if the Secretary of State really believes that collective bargaining should be free from State control he will have no difficulty in accepting Amendment No. 367.
The thinking behind Amendment No. 345 is that the whole tenor of the Government's policy as outlined in the Bill is contrary to the theme of the Donovan Report. To deal with the broad basis would be out of order, but perhaps I may give an illustration. The effect of the Bill is to centralise and make more bureaucratic the working of industrial relations, whereas we all know that the central theme of the Donovan Report was that the formal centralised system had got out of touch with the informal system which was operating on the shop floor. Therefore, by seeking to centralise responsibility for the conduct of industrial relations, the Bill is pulling against the whole tenor of the Donovan Report.
It is not appropriate at this stage to go in detail into the Bill's effect on the shop steward's freedom of action, but we shall argue later very convincingly, as I hope, that by saying, as the Bill does, that a shop steward must operate only with the express authority of his own union or else be at legal risk, the Government are


impeding the flexibility of negotiations on the shop floor, not least in productivity bargaining.
The fact is that the whole tenor in trade unionism in recent years has been to extend decision making down the line, as far as possible, devolving it on the individual member, whether through ballots or mass meetings or through the greater involvement of the shop steward. We believe that the way to fewer disputes and better productivity bargaining is through simply expressed and comprehensive local agreements which are respected and observed by the people concerned because those people have had a part in drawing them up.
This is not the stage at which to elaborate the examples more fully, but I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that by saying that collective bargaining should be not only freely but democratically conducted we are expressing the tendency of all advanced thought that the way to get people to observe agreements is not by imposing legal restrictions on them but by involving them in the drawing up of those agreements, thereby getting them emotionally and morally committed to supporting them.
It is for those reasons that we press these Amendments. If the right hon. Gentleman believes what he has said up to now, he will accept them. If he does not, we shall know that the real Secretary of State for Employment is the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

[Miss HARVIE ANDERSON in the Chair]

Sir John Foster: The right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) has built up an edifice of argument on the basis that responsibility is not in the conduct of collective bargaining but in the principles to be applied in it. I submit that her argument is quite irrelevant.
In this case, responsibility means that in collective bargaining neither side must resort to improper pressure, to wildcat strikes from the middle or to incitement to violence. The right hon. Lady is entirely wrong in claiming that responsibility affects the principle which one side may be putting forward.
The right hon. Lady's argument is that if the unions put forward a principle that

other factors have increased the cost of living they will be acting irresponsibly. But there is no evidence of that in the Bill. The responsibility lies in the conduct of collective bargaining. It is entirely irrelevant for her to say that responsibility, in the Government's interpretation, means acting in accordance with the guidelines laid down in the Consultative Document.
I submit that, that being so, it is the end of the argument on the Amendment. The responsibility applies to conduct. The right hon. Lady never said a word about that, except to claim that in the view of the Government the negotiations would be conducted irresponsibly unless they went according to the lines laid down in the Treasury document.
If trade unions in collective bargaining put forward the right hon. Lady's argument about other factors affecting cost of living, that would not be irresponsible conduct on their part. They are entitled under collective bargaining to put forward arguments which may or may not be rejected by the panel. There is nothing to stop them from doing that. But the right hon. Lady says that the Government, in putting in these words, are limiting the power of any trade union in collective bargaining to put forward any economic arguments which do not agree with the Government's views. I believe that the right hon. Lady's argument is ill founded if it means what I say it means; and that there is no harm at all in the words in the Bill.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Paget: I should first make my apology, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for my rather odd appearance. I came here with a bag to change and found that there was not a tie in it.
I completely agree with what the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) has said. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) made a most interesting speech, enunciating many principles, some of which I agree with. But I fail to see that it had anything to do with these Amendments. The words "responsibly conducted" are not so much as to the result but as to the method. What those words mean is a matter of law, for a judge to decide, and not for the Government to decide. I submit, however, that the meaning of "responsibly conducted" is simply that


of collective bargaining conducted by people duly authorised—people properly authorised to speak for the employers and people properly authorised, as trade union officials, to speak for the workers. I do not think that "responsibly" in that context can mean anything else.
I therefore urge the right hon. Gentleman to accept Amendment No. 367. I cannot see why on earth he should not accept it. I do not believe that it makes the slightest difference whether he accepts it or not. I hope that the Solicitor-General will consider this rather carefully. I gather that he is the author of the Bill. There is great pride of authorship, and that pride of authorship makes it extremely difficult to give away a line because one thinks that what one has expressed is better expressed that way than anyone else could do it. That may be so or not.
We want a reasonable Committee stage, and when this side of the Committee uses words which, even if the Solicitor-General considers them less graceful than his own, mean exactly the same thing, why not accept them? At least if he thinks that something sinister begins to emerge, let him explain what he thinks sinister. Does he really think that negotiations should not be orderly and freely conducted? Does he think that bargaining should not be on a voluntary basis? If he thinks that it should be freely conducted and on a voluntary basis, and if he finds that "voluntary basis" means anything different from "freely" in the Bill, he should say so. If there is a difference it might be a sinister one, but for my part I can discover no difference at all.
I am bound to say that I would find it impossible to support Amendment No. 345. The word "democratic" has been so enormously abused and is subject to such choice of meanings that it should not impinge on any Bill which is designed for precise expression. After all, we have had "people's democracies"; we have had "social democracies"; we have had "federal democracies"; as far as I know, in Spain, they have what they call a "Fascist democracy". It really does not seem to mean anything. If we went back to the original meaning, which was the Greek definition, one would be asking for

negotiations conducted by all the employers and all the workers at a mass meeting—and God preserve us from that!
I feel that the right hon. Gentleman would be a little intransigient if he did not accept Amendment No. 367. This seems to me to be his opportunity.

Mr. A. E. Cooper: I have known the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. R. T. Paget) for years and have always recognised that he has a penchant for putting his finger on the pulse of things to the obvious embarrassment of his own Front Bench. As for the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), I often wonder what would have happened if she had been around when Moses came down with the tablets. She would have put down so many Amendments to define these things that we would still have been arguing about them today if God had not imposed a guillotine.
The right hon. Lady seems to develop a temper which I find it always in inverse ratio to the strength of her argument. She would be the first to admit now that she has not put forward any argument of any strength whatever in moving the Amendment. She speaks about negotiations being free and says that the Government ought not to interfere. She says that the Government have leaned on employers and so forth. She must remember that for six years that was exactly what the Government of which she was a member did. They leaned on the employers night after night when these crises arose, serving tea and buns at No. 10 Downing Street at midnight.

Mrs. Castle: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is exactly what the Conservative Party is supposed to have repudiated?

Mr. Paget: On a point of order, Miss Harvie Anderson. Has this Amendment got anything at all to do with whether the Government lean on employers or on the workers or lean not at all?

The Deputy Chairman: I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman would agree that that is a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Cooper: We have had negotiated settlements at anything from 4 to 10, 14 and 17 per cent. over the last few


months. When the Labour Government were in power and leaned on employers and trade unions, the settlements were of the order of 3¼ to 4 per cent. Are we to be told now that that Government did not interfere, that these were freely negotiated settlements? The right hon. Lady knows perfectly well that they were not freely negotiated, that throughout the whole of that period there was direct Government interference in all these trade union settlements.
Then the right hon. Lady talked about the Government's taxation policy as being part of a general inflationary settlement. Very well; I think that we would accept that. But we can also point out to her—if she will do me the courtesy of listening instead of cracking jokes with her hon. Friend—that the Labour Government increased taxation by £2,000 million. Was that non-inflationary? She knows that that was a major contribution to the wages spiral and one of the reasons why her Government had to insist on the 3¼ to 4 per cent. level of wage increases. She cannot get away from these facts.
The point remains that within the last 12 months of the Labour Government the right hon. Lady and the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson) recognised that the wages policy which they had been pursuing was unworkable, and they abandoned it. So the flood-gates were opened, and this is the situation which the present Government find themselves trying to correct. It is no use the right hon. Lady coming here today in a white sheet. From my experience in industry, I can assure her that all negotiations are conducted between employer and employed in a responsible manner.

Mr. James Sillars: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the opening of the flood-gates of wage increases. Perhaps he will explain why it was that when the £11,000 a year medical consultants got an increase of 15 per cent. the Government topped it up to 20 per cent. within two or three weeks of taking office.

Mr. Cooper: I still think that that is not enough for the services which the consultants give. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the interim stage for an increase in their salaries, though perhaps

not to the level confirmed by the present Government, was agreed by the Labour Government. The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) has brought this point out during debates since then.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: It is true that the Labour Government may have agreed to that, but they did not impose taxes on the sick and the disabled, nor did they give millions of pounds back to the very rich and at the same time increase the amount of a settlement which was freely negotiated, which is what the Tory Government have done.

Mr. Cooper: I shall not rise to that, because it would only lead to the hon. Gentleman's embarrassment if I were to explain in detail all the tax increases promulgated by the Labour Government, which added up to the astronomical figure of £2,000 million.
Generally speaking, agreements in Britain between employer and employee are conducted responsibly, for the simple reason that businesses must operate profitably to pay their taxes and the salaries and wages of their employees. If irresponsible arrangements are entered into which increase costs to such an extent that goods cannot be sold either abroad or in Britain, there is mass unemployment. It is, therefore, in the interests of both sides to conduct their negotiations responsibly.
We need not define "responsibly". We know what it means amongst ourselves. [Laughter.] Perhaps the right hon. Lady does not understand. I can understand her inability to understand the meaning of the word, as she was a member of the Socialist Government for six years. I know that the words "responsibly" and "responsibility" are well understood by trade union leaders and by leaders of British industry.
Amendment No. 367 merely plays about with words which fundamentally mean exactly the same thing. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Northampton that Amendment No. 345 cannot be supported.

Mr. Tom Ellis: I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). I object to "responsibly" because it is ambiguous and, more dangerously, question-begging.


The Bill tries to do on a national, legislative scale the question-begging which frequently occurs in industry.
I will give an example in detail taken from industry of precisely what we on this side mean when we say that "responsibly" is not acceptable to us. Perhaps I shall be forgiven if I indulge in five minutes of sermonising to clear the decks whilst I explain to anybody who does not know and recapitulate to those who do know that, by and large, management in industry can be categorised in one or other of two types—organic management or mechanistic management.
I will explain the difference between the two, because the difference is important from our point of view. Mechanistic management is the traditional management we have all seen in British industry over the last 50 years. It is characterised by a hierarchical structure. The symptoms of mechanistic management are such things as the assumption of omnipotence at the top of the hierarchy—the assumption that the superior at a particular level in the hierarchy is more competent than the junior. It is characterised by the fact that the communication tends to be vertical and formal and consists largely of information going up and instruction coming down. It is characterised mainly by an individual at a particular level in the hierarchy acting to a specification laid upon him by his superior—that is, he is to make always what is called a programmed decision. Whenever he is confronted with a certain situation in industry, the individual will apply only the rules catering for that situation, rules which have been made previously by senior levels of the hierarchy.
5.15 p.m.
This is the typical mechanistic management structure in industry. It is rapidly becoming out-dated. There is any amount of documented evidence to support the contention that it is completely out of date for the situation many industries are now in.
The organic management structure is characterised by a loose and formal lateral arrangement whereby communication tends to be of a consultative nature horizontally between all the various people in the organisation. The communication is often verbal and

informal. The authoritarianism, which is a typical symptom of the old mechanistic structure, is in the most developed organically structured industries replaced by a commitment to the business ends of the organisation.
That is a short description of the two basic types of management practised today. I emphasise that increasingly the most efficient and ablest firms are tending to move to the organic type of management structure.
This is a preface setting the scene before pointing out why we on this side object to "responsibly". Some time ago I was asked by the staff department of a major national industry to give a talk on the subject of handling a personnel problem. This is industrial relations on the micro-scale—where everything starts from. The staff department kindly gave me a brief from which to speak. The brief started in this way —"Handling a personnel problem". Step 1 was: determining the objective: how did the problem arise; how does it affect individuals, the group and the work; be sure your objective is not too narrow.
Step 2 in the brief was: get the facts; consider the record; what rules and customs apply; talk with individuals concerned; get opinions, and so on.
Step 3 in handling a personnel problem was: weigh and decide; fit the facts together; look for gaps and contradictions; consider their bearing on each other, and so on. Step 4 was: take action, with another list of sub-headings. Step 5 was: check results, with another list of sub-headings.
On the face of it, that brief was unexceptionable and straightforward. From the point of view of the Government, they will argue that what is expressed in the Bill is unexceptionable and straightforward. In fact, it completely begs the question of how to handle the problem, because it presupposes that there is only one basic management approach in each of the five steps, whereas there are at least two and possibly more.
For any organisation which is managed on an organic basis, in step 1—determining the objective—the purpose of the concern as a business will be in mind. Advancing the common cause of the business in real terms, as distinct from, say,


in departmental terms, will influence the parties to the problem. There will not be undue concern with complying with the rules, as indeed the rules may be loose and ill-founded. In the mechanistic organisation, on the other hand, the objective will emphasise respect for authority, the status quo, conforming to the rules and procedures, and the arguments will readily acquire a legalistic flavour.
The second step in this brief—the need to get the facts—makes it easy for one to parody George Orwell. One might say that all facts are factual but that some are more factual than others. This happens when somebody is involved in a personnel problem. He looks at the facts from his point of view.
The manager, when getting the facts—if it is the manager who is dealing with the personnel problem—must take them into account in two ways. He must remember not only that in hearing the facts as stated by an individual he will inevitably weight them according to his prejudices—water them down or build them up, according to the circumstances—until he accepts what may be called the "acceptable fact", but that while this is an acceptable fact of his mind, it may he a downright untruth in the individual's mind.
This shows that quite a lot of discussion and patience may be necessary in arriving at facts which everybody can be persuaded to accept, particularly, for example, if they are facts about customs and traditions in relation to premises, procedures and so on.
At the end of the day, however, it may be that absolute agreement about the facts is not forthcoming. This is unfortunate, and, to that extent, it weakens the course of action finally accepted—very seriously or less seriously according to whether a management organisation is organic or mechanistic.
I have deliberately suggested disagreement about the facts to try to illustrate the difference between the two types of management organisation. I have implied that the manager searching for the facts to deal with a personnel problem—step 2 of my brief—is himself involved as a potentional protagonist and not as an external, impartial judge. I have not considered the third step but, rather, I have said that even in step 2 when getting opinions and talking with the individuals

concerned, the manager should try to reach an accommodation between himself and the individuals on the true nature of the facts. To that extent, he influences people's understanding of the facts and may himself be influenced thereby.
I am not saying that the manager deliberately sets out to make an individual see the facts as he sees them, but, rather, that he should realise that from their various points of view individuals may be justified in understanding the facts differently; and until a reconciliation is reached between them, the problem will remain that much more difficult to resolve.
This is lateral communication at work, and there is a fundamental difference between it and vertical communication. In the lateral approach the senior and subordinate try to reach a common understanding and acceptance of the facts—the one influences the other—and when the moment arrives for step 3 to come into it, the gaps and contradictions have already, certainly in part, been resolved.
In the vertical mechanistic approach, however—which is the approach in which the manager is more in the position of a judge in a court of law—he takes evidence in step 2 and will be at liberty to rule out inadmissible evidence. He weighs the evidence in step 3 and applies the rules in step 4, when he takes action.
His assessment of the facts—that is, the senior's assessment—is presumed to be the correct one, and any junior's assessment is irrelevant. Accordingly, there is no attempt at a common understanding of the facts and any effect that the various protagonists' different assessments may have is disregarded.
I have tried to show in these first two stages of the argument of the brief the difference between these two basic approaches and how the word "responsibly" would, I believe, be accepted by those who are in any court set up by the Government the two people responsible from the point of view of the present status quo. In other words, the whole legalistic set-up of the Bill slants the word "responsibly" entirely in favour of a particular managerial point of view. It is precisely from this argument that I believe that the Amendment which refers to
orderly and freely conducted collective bargaining


is the point at which we are trying to get. It is in the conduct of the negotiations that the word "responsibly" comes in.
This is precisely what I have tried to show. These three points explain how, by assuming a particular approach, the whole question is begged. That is why I am happy to support the Amendment.

Mr. Gower: I tended to agree with the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) when he said that the addition of some of the proposed insertions might not make a great deal of difference when the Clause comes to be interpreted. However, to do her justice, the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) seemed far more concerned to get the word "responsibly" out of the Clause than to get the other words inserted. Indeed, it was on the removal of the word that she laid most emphasis.
The right hon. Lady explained her doubts about the validity of incorporating the word, considering the history of the last few months. In other words, she and her colleagues who support this group of Amendments seem more concerned about including the word "responsibly" because of what has happened during these difficult months since the Conservative Government took office than about anything else, apart from the right hon. Lady's quotations of some of the remarks made by my right hon. Friend during the last election.
While I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Northampton that it is possible that the addition of these words would not he of great consequence, I put it to him that the exclusion of the word "responsibly" might have some considerable importance.

Mr. Paget: Perhaps the Minister could help us over this difficulty. Purely as a lawyer, I suggest that the word "responsibly" here could have one meaning only, and that is "duly authorised" that responsibly conducted negotiations are negotiations conducted between people duly organised by the two sides to conduct them. I do not think that it could mean anything else. If it does mean something else, then one might look for sinister meanings. Perhaps the Minister or the Solicitor-General would care to say whether my simple proposition is correct.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Gower: It is fairly obvious that the word "responsibly" can also mean "with a sense of responsibility". Most of the dictionaries give that as an alternative meaning. Any court interpreting the word "responsibly" would be inclined to take the view that it meant "with a sense of responsibility". I should have thought that the hon. and learned Member for Northampton, with his long court experience, would not exclude that meaning.
The comments of the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn about what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may or may not have said at the last General Election are completely inconsequential. We on this side of the Committee have a tremendous regard for my right hon. Friend, but he would be the last to claim that he did or did not say that a certain thing could have any effect on the interpretation of the Clause. I should have thought that the trade unions and the employers—all the parties in industry—would want to act responsibly in any negotiations.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Are we to assume from what the hon. Gentleman is saying that his right hon. and hon. Friends act totally irresponsibly during General Elections?

Mr. Gower: No. What the member of any party says at a General Election is entirely irrelevant—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—hon. Members opposite have been Members long enough to know that one must finish a sentence—is entirely irrelevant in the interpretation of a Clause. The meaning of a particular word has no relevance to what anybody says in a political speech. No judge would say, "What did the Minister intend?". He would say, "What is the word in the Bill?"—and the word in this Bill is "responsibly".
I should have thought that the trade unions, like the employers, would wish to act with responsibility.

Mr. Dick Douglas: We are contentious because the definition relates to the code of industrial practice for which the Minister will be responsible after the enactment of the Bill. It may have some persuasive influence in litigation before the National Industrial Relations Court


or industrial tribunal. What the hon. Gentleman said was not correct.

Mr. Gower: The right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn laid great emphasis on the importance of what has happened in the last few months. Even if one take the hon. Gentleman's view, people negotiating in industry are living in a wonderful world of freedom compared with that in which they had to negotiate when the Labour Party was in office. The Labour Government framed a detailed code making it illegal for anybody to have any rise or increase in pay. They even made it illegal for people to receive increases to which the employers had agreed.
We are not seeking to do any of those things. Are we living in a world of make-believe? The Labour Party is trying to forget everything it has said or done. The Government's proposal is a generous, reasonable, orderly proposal compared with the very restrictive penal provisions in the Labour Party's proposed legislation.
While I see no danger in the insertion of some of the words proposed in the Amendment, I hope that the Opposition as well as the Government will realise the usefulness of having in a Bill of this kind a provision about responsibility and a provision that negotiations should be free. Collective bargaining should be freely conducted. I hope that all hon. Members agree that it should be conducted with a sense of responsibility.
It is in the spirit of wishing not to put one party in an unfair position but merely to provide a framework within which all parties would want to act responsibly that I ask the Committee to approve the wording in the Clause.

Mr. Dan Jones: It is true that there were certain penal clauses in the Labour Government's proposals, but what the hon. Gentleman does not choose to remember is that they were prepared at the request of the T.U.C. to lay proposals on the table and to give responsibility to the proper people—the T.U.C. and the employers. I ask the hon. Gentleman to remember that and to request his colleagues to copy that example.

Mr. Gower: The hon. Gentleman was a Member at the relevant time and he voted for two successive Bills which

made it illegal for anybody to accept an increase in pay.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington (Mr. W. T. Williams) said on Second Reading that the Bill
may well be a lawyer's paradise but it certainly will be a litigant's purgatory.
This Amendment demonstrates that fact. The word "reasonable" is to be interpreted as "without improper pressure during the process of collective bargaining—the words of the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster)—"duly authorised"—the words of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget)—or "with a due degree of responsibility"—the words of the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower). If there was a justification for our saying that this Bill was a lawyer's paradise, it is to be found in the first line of the first Clause. We are starting on a difficult and dangerous road, as hon. Members have illustrated.
The danger in the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Northwich is this. When he talks about improper pressure being brought to bear when bargaining is taking place, he is assuming equality between the parties taking part in the bargaining as though both sides were equal partners. That is nonsense. Delay in negotiating, maintaining the status quo and the introduction of new machinery work to the employer's advantage and to the disadvantage of the employee when bargaining is taking place.
One of the most important factors in the industrial unrest of the past few years has been the frustration among working people at delays in reaching settlements, because every time there is delay an employer is buying time at the expense of working people.

Sir J. Foster: Is the hon. Gentleman objecting to negotiations being responsibly conducted? Surely he is not in favour of collective bargaining being irresponsibly conducted? He must meet this point.

Mr. McNamara: Neither I nor anybody in the trade union movement has ever argued in favour of irresponsible negotiation. Our argument is that the


word "responsibly" in the context of the Bill is an insult to both sides of industry—the trade unions and the responsible employers. If it were suggested that they were behaving irresponsibly, both sides would be quick to deny it.
Hon. Members opposite made a lot of noise when my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) tried to indicate that the purpose of the Bill was not the carrying on of free negotiation, because what we are witnessing is not free negotiation but Government interference. This is not a Bill to make unions strong or free or to bring about strong leadership. We are debating a Bill to curb wages. It has nothing to do with people being free, responsible and equal. It was not I who said that but the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath), Prime Minister, who, on Second Reading, when talking about the past economic troubles of this country, which no one would deny, said:
In this process the competitive pressures inherent in the existing system of collective bargaining and the consequences of industrial disputes, as of other forms of industrial disruption, have pushed up money incomes beyond what both sides of the House recognise to be possible in a productive economy.
In other words, strong trade unions, militantly organised, put good wages in the pockets of the workers. It may be that there is a wages problem at the moment; I am not denying it. But to suggest that this Bill is meant to do other than curb increases in wages is hypocritical.
The right hon. Gentleman said:
Both sides of the house recognise …",
I am always worried about these very vague generalisations, when it is said, "We all agree about that" when, in fact, nobody has been invited to give his opinion. When the right hon. Gentleman said that both sides of the House recognise what has happened, I suppose he meant it in the same way as the statement that both sides were consulted prior to the election of the Speaker. In fact, nobody asked me about that; neither did the Prime Minister ask me for my interpretation of the economic scene.
The Prime Minister said:
This, then, is the underlying problem. Even when the present rate of growth incomes and prices has been moderated, the problem will still be with us. It is possible for right hon. Gentlemen opposite to say that this Bill will

not produce an immediate answer to this problem. But there is no doubt whatever"—
and these are the important words—
that it is a vital element in the longer-term strategy for dealing with it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th December, 1970; Vol. 808, c. 1135.]
So it is a vital element to keep down wages. He said nothing about competition, about responsible trade unionism; he just made an argument for keeping down wages.
I should like now to refer to the Amendment relating to the word "democratically". My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) poured a certain amount of scorn upon that; but it is fundamental to the whole issue that we are debating. We are talking about voluntary organisations. We are talking about free people, entering freely into discussions about their own future, their working conditions and their wages, and having a free say in what type of agreements shall be arrived at. This was recognised by the Donovan Commission. This is the revolution which has taken place in trade unions in the past 10 to 20 years, with more power going from the leadership to the shop floor. The leadership is very careful about what agreements it will sign or will not sign until it has discussed them with the shop floor workers. This is proper, because this is what democracy is about. It is a case of the person on the shop floor reaching decisions about his own working conditions, environment and wages.
This is what we want. But this Bill reverses completely that trend which is taking place, and it does so in a number of ways which are fundamental to the whole of our debate. One of the great criticisms which used to be made of my own union, the Transport and General Workers Union, was that it was monolithic, that the union official, the executive, the general officers were not in complete harmony with the rank and file members. Indeed, one of the criticisms during the Pilkington dispute was of union leadership.
Yet the moment the unions try to adopt a more democratic and responsible attitude to their members lower down the scale they are criticised and charged with being irresponsible and giving too much power to the shop stewards and to the shop floor generally. This Bill makes


it clear that the unions will be liable to enormous fines—in the case of my own union, a fine possibly up to £100,000—and that individuals will be liable to fines, with no fixed limit, for any unfair industrial practices; and this can do nothing but reverse the situation from one of decentralisation to one of centralisation.
We can say, "All our decisions will be made by shop stewards." We can say that "every trade union member is entitled to call people out on strike according to the rule book". I should like to see that get past the new Registrar. We are strengthening the central authority of the union by putting strict limitations on the legitimate day-to-day activities of the shop steward, and the full-time official, and we are introducing the full sanction of dreadful fines either on the union or on the individual. This can only lead to an ossification of the trade union movement, and this is something that we want least of all in our modern society As a result of the changes taking place in education, as a result of the mass media, people have become more and more aware of what is going on around them. They want to take part in discussions which are shaping their future. They do not want this heavy centralisation. That is why the word "democratically" in this Amendment is so important.
5.45 p.m.
We have seen in the unions a growth in the number of agreements which are reached and then are not signed or initialled by the trade union officials but which have been taken back to the shop floor, followed by mass meetings when people at the grass roots have been given an opportunity to accept or reject or modify. This is a practice which should be encouraged, and now the Government want to stop it. Basically, the real problem which arises is this. By its very nature a union, unless it becomes a heavy bureaucratic machine, is not geared to enforce and police the making of all agreements to ensure that they are legally binding and watertight.

Sir Edward Brown: Clearly, if we are to have the situation which the hon. Member is putting to the Committee, in which we have to consult right the way down to the rank and file on the shop floor, is not the hon. Gentleman also arguing, on the same basis of equality and

democracy, that we as Members of Parliament should go back to our constituencies and consult every one of our constituents, no matter what party they support, before we take a vote in this House?

Mr. McNamara: That is what the secret ballot is all about. When we went before the electorate we said to our constituents, "This is what we want you to agree with. If you agree with us you will vote for us." Of course, I exclude the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) from these remarks because he said that everything he says at an election is irrelevant.

Mr. Gower: The hon. Gentleman knows very well what I said. I said that it was irrelevant in the context of this Clause, in the interpretation of its wording. How can that be relevant to what is said at the time of a General Election?

Mr. McNamara: I should have thought that in considering the reasons behind the introduction of legislation it was of tremendous relevance to examine words which hon. Gentlemen have used during an election campaign, particularly if they are now on the Front Bench. I should have thought that was most important, because that would enable us to decide whether action which is being undertaken springs from malice or from a desire for the public good.

Mr. Iremonger: rose—

Mr. McNamara: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. The hon. Member for Bath (Sir E. Brown) suggested that a trade union official was on the same basis as a Member of Parliament. But there is a distinction. Is it suggested that trade union officials are in a representative capacity in the same way as we are? We argue that they are delegates to carry out the wishes of their constituent members, with the right of recall at any time. Now I will give way to the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger).

Mr. Iremonger: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. Surely he is doing less than justice to himself as a lecturer in law when he quarrels with my hon. Friend who suggested that what is said, be it in this House or in any other forum, is irrelevant in the construction of Statutes. That is what my hon. Friend


the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) was talking about. He was talking about the construction of this Statute—a construction that will have to be made by the courts—and he says that it is not within the power of the courts to take into account what is said outside the Statute when construing its meaning.

Mr. McNamara: I would say with the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman that he has not read the Bill properly; for then he would have seen in the Bill that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State will have power to introduce a code of fair and unfair industrial practices, and has to submit them to the House. The code is not part of the Bill, but the code has to be taken into consideration by the courts when they are deciding disputes which come before them under the terms of the Bill.
The second point the hon. Gentleman was making was about the construction of what is in the Bill. Yes, indeed, that is so, that the courts do go by what is in the Bill and not what we in this Committee or the House say. That is so, but the point I was making when I started was that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton, the hon. and learned Member for Northwich and the hon. Member for Barry all gave different interpretations of the Bill and of these words. I will give way to the hon. Member for Bath but it will be the last time I shall give way.

Sir E. Brown: What I was asking the hon. Member was, when he supports the use of the word "democratic", whether we as Members of Parliament should always go to consult our constituents and whether the same right should be conferred on trade unions to consult their constituents. I take the view that, since we come here to represent our constituents' views, and do not consult them continuously, trade unions should also be prepared to accept the democratically elected or appointed leadership of those responsible organisations.

Mr. McNamara: I can only say that if the hon. Gentleman really feels that, then he does not understand the nature of representation in trade unions, and

the nature of the mandate of officials who go into negotiations on wage claims.
I would finish on this point. The importance of these words is that the trade union movement at the moment is developing new forms of democracy, of consultation with its members, and of enhancing their dignity and status. The measures contained in the Bill go completely contrary to that development within the trade union movement. They will lead the movement to be less democratic. They will cut away the initiative from local trade union officials and shop stewards.

[Mr. BRYANT GODMAN IRVINE in the Chair]

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I hope that the Committee will decide to leave the wording of this subsection unaltered, and that for a very simple reason, namely, that it does not matter in the slightest.
This Clause, indeed, ought not to be, and perhaps in former times would not have been, a part of the Bill at all, and reading it one is led to regret the disappearance of the old custom of having a preamble to a Bill. In former times, before the words "Be it enacted" there would have been a shorter or a longer preamble setting out, in more or less tendentious language, the motives by which those who were presenting the Bill were moved. It would not have been part of the Bill. It would not have been, apart from Second Reading, a subject for debate. It would not have affected the enactment, or the interpretation of the enactment, but if those presenting the Bill liked to have it there, well then, they were welcome to put it there. I believe that this Clause is very nearly the old style preamble which our present procedure unfortunately compels us to put after the words of enactment instead of before them.
There has been a good deal of discussion in this debate as to the view which the courts might take of the wording of this subsection; but this subsection is hardly justiciable in any conceivable circumstances. There are only two functions, so far as I can see, which it performs. One—in Clause 2(1)—is to guide the mind of the Secretary of State in framing his code of practice, because


he has to try to draw up a code of practice which, in his "opinion"—that is one stage removed—
would be helpful"—
that is a further stage—
for the purpose specified in section 1(1)".
Now, it is quite inconceivable, that whatever my right hon. Friend, or, indeed, any Secretary of State, put in his code of practice would be ruled ultra vires on the ground that manifestly no reasonable being could regard it as "helpful" for purposes as general as those set out in this subsection. In any case, it is the House, as has been pointed out, which will pronounce upon the propriety or otherwise of the code of practice. It would be no defence for my right hon. Friend, if sound objection were taken to one point or another in his code of practice, to say, "But I came to the conclusion that, in my opinion, it is helpful for the purposes set out in subsection (1)." So there is no practical effect in these words in relation to the code of practice.
Then we may look at subsection (2) of this Clause, which says that the authorities there enumerated are to regard—this is to be their mental condition— "as guiding principles" what is set out in subsection (1). I take, just by way of example and for brevity, one such authority, namely, the Chief Registrar, and his assistants, whose duties are set out in Part IV of the Bill. If we read Part IV we shall find that the Registrar will be required by law, in doing his duty, to have regard to very specific matters which the Committee will consider later and which are set out in that part of the Bill. Once again, I defy any hon. Member to conclude that the Chief Registrar, having done his duty in accordance with Part IV of the Bill, and having fulfilled the requirements there placed upon him, could be faulted on the ground that somehow he had failed to regard it as a guiding principle that there was to be "collective bargaining", however described.
The expressions in this preamble, this first Clause of the Bill, are not of a justiciable character anyhow. There has been debate upon the meaning of the word "responsibly"; and, no doubt, if it were a word which could be legally interpreted, the view taken by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) would be cogent. But I submit that anyone reading these principles as

they are drafted will recognise that the term "responsibly", and many of the other terms, are used simply in a popular sense. It is journalese rather than legal drafting which we find when we read this subsection.
Therefore, in discussing whether or not a word so vague as "responsibly", subordinate to a principle so general as "collective bargaining", the purpose of which is that it "shall be regarded as a guiding principle" by the authorities to whom the Bill gives specifying instructions later, the Committee is wasting its time, and holding back from consideration of the matters of real importance which will follow, when we get to the Bill itself. It is for that reason, since the matters contained in the Bill are, beyond dispute, of immense importance, that I would hope that we would allow this wording—which is perfectly ineffective whatever it be—to remain undisturbed.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Stanley Orme: The elucidation which the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) tried to give has, in fact, confused the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman said that Clause 1 was tendentious, but I suggest to him that the whole Bill is tendentious. The right hon. Gentleman regretted the absence of a Preamble outside the orbit of the Bill and said that Clause 1 was a substitute for it. The Preamble having been moved into the Bill, we cannot allow it to go by without discussing its contents. Clause 1 lays down the principles of the Bill, and we are having a form of Second Reading debate on the Clause because it covers all the major aspects of the Government's intentions.
We have had from three learned lawyers three different definitions of the word "responsibility". The Clause states:
The provisions of this Act shall have effect for the purpose of promoting good industrial relations in accordance with the following general principles, that is to say,—
(a) the principle of collective bargaining freely and responsibly conducted;".
Unfortunately, we cannot take those words at their face value. In talking about industrial relations we are dealing with an emotive situation where words sometimes have different meanings, and this is what makes the whole issue of collective


agreements so difficult. If collective agreements are made legally binding, these are the sort of arguments we shall be faced with. We shall start with a word like "responsibility", about which there will be tremendous arguments in courts of law or in the Industrial Court, with the result that industrial relations will not go forward as they do now in a free and easy manner between employers and trade unions and without interference from a code of law, a code of conduct or the Government.
The central point about Clause 1(1)(a) is that for the first time the law will be brought directly into the centre of collective bargaining. I say to the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West that this is not a small matter which we can pass by for the moment until we get to the later Clauses. It is too important for that. The phraseology used in connection with collective bargaining is completely unacceptable. Although the words in the Amendment might be derided, they at least make it clear to trade union members exactly what we mean by the principle of orderly and freely conducted collective bargaining on a voluntary basis. The words may appear to be repetitive, but the point must be spelt out.
There is a complete contradiction in the Government's approach to collective agreements. When the Government were in opposition the Secretary of State for Employment night after night opposed the prices and incomes policy on the ground that trade unions would not be allowed freely to negotiate. The Opposition were opposed to trade unions being restricted by norms. Some Labour Members were opposed to the prices and incomes policy and voted against it, but it is obvious that they voted against it for different reasons from those of the Tory Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman did not then say, "I want the trade unions and the employers to meet freely, to be unencumbered and to be able to negotiate with one another, except for the public sector where the money will not be forthcoming beyond a certain norm".
After what has happened in the refuse collectors' dispute and the electricity workers' dispute, and the setting up of

the Wilberforce Inquiry, which is biased and loaded against the electrical workers, with one ex-Tory candidate and one anti-trade unionist, pro-Tory, donator to the Tory Party—

Mr. R. Carr: The hon. Member refers to Lord Wilberforce, who is a very distinguished judge and has been a Tory candidate. Has anyone suggested that the Donovan Commission was biased because Lord Donovan had once been a Labour Member of Parliament?

Mr. Orme: The difference between Lord Donovan and Lord Wilberforce is the difference between chalk and cheese.

Mr. Harold Walker: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the difference is perhaps between a tribunal of three and a Commission of 10?

Mr. Orme: I accept what my hon. Friend says. When there is a dispute involving low-paid workers earning between £15 and £20 a week, we do not want to appoint a High Court judge or a judge of the court of appeal earning £15,000 or £25,000 a year to pass judgment on workers about whom he knows nothing and of whom he has no practical experience. Why should such people sit in judgment? Why do you think that the postal workers are not prepared to accept your impartiality? I am sorry, Mr. Godman Irvine. I am referring to the right hon. Gentleman's so-called impartiality.
The Government are trying to set up an incomes policy. After having opposed such a policy, voted against it and told the electorate that they were not in favour of an incomes policy, the Government are now operating an incomes policy that allows an increase in judges' salaries and allows solicitors to put up their own fees, with nothing said about the jumbo-jet pilots. We have double standards in this country. This is what I complained about under the last Administration, and I am certainly complaining about it now. We pick out sections of British workpeople and say that if we can hold back that section and make an example of it we shall be able to hold back the level of wage claims, but we can ignore increases for professional people and increased dividends and profits. These are the double standards which operate. Can


one blame the postal workers, the electricity workers and the refuse workers for rejecting this type of philosophy?

Mr. Alex Eadie: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a double standard in the Tory Party, in view of the fact that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) has volunteered to go before the Wilberforce committee and argue that trade unions do not cause inflation or price increases?

Mr. Orme: I read that matter with interest and I hope that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West will go before the tribunal. There are certainly some contradictions involved. Not long ago that same right hon. Gentleman was telling this House in the last Parliament that trade unions were irrelevant.

Hon. Members: Get on with the Clause.

Mr. Orme: I will deal with this debate in my own way. If I am out of order, I am certain that I shall be called to order by the proper quarter. The point with which I was dealing is the central issue of collective bargaining. That is what this is all about. As my hon. Friend has said, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West has stated recently that wage increases have no inflationary effects and that trade unions are not to blame for inflation. It is not so long ago that he was telling the country that trade unions were irrelevant and have no effect on the wages structure as such.

Mr. Powell: There is no contradiction between the two statements. As a matter of fact, I have been saying both for many years.

Mr. Orme: Then I am amazed that the right hon. Gentleman did not vote against the Second Reading of this Bill. If he is to carry to its logical conclusion the lucidity of argument which he has at his command, then he should sometimes do so in the Lobby of the House.
I believe that the use of the word "responsibility" and the tenor of the Clause and its very tone and arrogance are examples of the manner in which this Government are trying to deal with the trade unions. They are doing so by

attacking them centrally on wages. The strength of the trade union movement is such at present that it is improving wages, but there is a great illusion about so-called "mad" inflation.
Professor John Hughes, in an article in Tribune this week—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I would advise hon. Members opposite to read it—makes the point very clearly indeed that wage increases can inject a certain amount of growth into the economy. He points out that wages in this country are abysmally low compared with wages in other Western European countries. He says that there is much to be gained from higher wages. When I was in industry I always found that where the management was capable and responsible, the productivity increased and so did the earnings of the people concerned.
6.15 p.m.
The argument which at the moment is being used against higher wages, and the work of the Wilberforce Committee which has been set up to act as judge and jury on the whole industrial front, must be opposed. The T.U.C. was absolutely right to refuse to give evidence to that Committee and to avoid giving it an importance which it does not warrant. Who are these three people who are able to set themselves up in this way and who, the Government hope, will be laying the foundation of an incomes policy which can be imposed on the working people? Frankly, they are not going to have it.
I remember the Secretary of State opposite saying in the days of the Labour Government how the lower-paid workers had been left behind, and how the prices and incomes policy had not worked. At any rate, the lower-paid workers have learnt their lesson. They are now standing on their own feet. They are realising that they are indispensable in vital sectors of our economy. The right hon. Gentleman will not recognise that the electricity workers, the refuse workers, the postal workers, and car workers are vital to the economy. There are some other sections that we could perhaps get along without very well—and I am looking at a few at the moment on the benches opposite!
I have tried to put forward the argument that the first Clause is vital since it sets the tone of the Bill and, by its language, shows the Government's attitude. The Government have regarded this as so important that it has been put as a


sort of preamble into Clause 1 since it is clearly entitled, "General principles". It is these general principles to which we are opposed, and we will continue to oppose them as the Bill goes through the House.
We will not convince hon. Members opposite by our arguments, but I hope that we can convince some people—certainly the trade union movement, who are learning very fast—that there is more discussion on trade unionism at the moment and a greater educational campaign going on today than has taken place since 1927. I believe that in a few months' time we shall be one of the most articulate, best educated and possibly the most militant trade union movements this country has ever seen. The Secretary of State had better be wary because this Bill will not help him but will destroy everything he stands for.

Mr. R. Carr: I should like first to say to the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) a personal "Thank you" for her kind remarks about me at the beginning of her speech. I wish to say to the House how much not only I myself but all my family appreciated the many messages we have had from very large numbers of hon. Members on all sides of the House in view of our little, shall I say, "accident" last week.
I come to the Amendments and, having listened to what has just been said by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), I agree that he has a right to say some of the things he said. Whether one agrees with him or not, I suspect that even he may come to regret some of his last words. Although there is room and need for a militant trade union movement, so long as it is responsible—which is one of the words about which we are bothered in this Amendment—I would emphasise that if some of the implications in his closing remarks were to come true—and I hope that they were not meant—it would not be just the Treasury Bench or my right hon. and hon. Friends behind me who would be in strong disagreement with the hon. Member and those who think like him, but an overwhelming majority of the people of this country. Before he speaks like that again he should remember that.
Apart from that, in most of the rest of what the hon. Member was saying he,

at least, had a right to talk as he did, because that is how he talked when he sat on this side of the House. That is how the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer)—who now sits on the Opposition Front Bench—spoke, against his right hon. Friends on the Front Bench. But that it not how the right hon. Lady spoke when she was the Minister. The Amendment is completely at odds with the attitude that the right hon. Lady and the majority of those who sit behind her took when they were on the Government benches.
There are a few hon. Members opposite—the hon. Member for Salford, West and the hon. Member for Walton are two examples—who have a right to say these things, whether or not we agree with them, but they are the exception and not the rule. It would be good for the honesty of British politics if hon. Members opposite remembered that.

Mr. Dan Jones: The right hon. Gentleman is chastising hon. Members on this side of the House. Will he be precise and say whether, in his remarks, he is including the document, "In Place of Strife"?

Mr. Carr: Yes, I am including that in what I am saying. But I had even more in mind prices and incomes White Papers and prices and incomes Acts.

Mr. Jones: If that is the case, surely the Minister and his supporters ought to realise that "In Place of Strife "was buried out of existence by the T.U.C., and responsibility was given back to the T.U.C. Why should the Minister condemn something that is dead?

Mr. Carr: It is interesting to hear that "In Place of Strife" is buried. I was about to congratulate the right hon. Lady on its second birthday. It was born two years ago yesterday—17th January, 1969. Many of us will remember the passion, the sincerity and the urgency with which the right hon. Lady, the then Leader of the Opposition, the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), and the whole Government Front Bench of those days—besides many but by no means all other hon. Members opposite—preached the necessity for that document.
It is interesting to hear what the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Dan Jones) says. If he really believes that "In Place of Strife" is buried the country will also be interested to know, because two years is quite a short time in politics, and a party that publishes a document in response to, and as its comment on, the report of a Royal Commission and then, two years later—after having told the country that it was essential in the national interest—has the effrontery to say that it is buried, has no right to speak for the people of this country for a long time to come.

Mr. John Prescott: In view of the Minister's passionate support for "In Place of Strife" at least that is a step in the right direction—can he say why he and his supporters did not vote for it, instead of merely abstaining and dodging the issue?

Hon. Members: Answer!

Mr. Carr: I invite the hon. Gentleman to read the report of the debate. We then believed—as we still believe—that a new framework of industrial relations law is a precondition for the improvement of industrial relations in order to bring about the degree of prosperity that this country can and should have. We had believed that for many years, and we believe it now. To that extent we believed that "In Place of Strife" should be welcomed. We could not vote positively for it, for reasons that I gave quite clearly at the time, namely, that it contained within it certain provisions for direct ministerial intervention rather than the rule of law—we believed that to be bad in principle—but we should have been in a better position had the right hon. Lady and the Government gone ahead with what they told the country was essential in the national interest. As it turned out, they funked it and did not carry out their policy.
The events of the last two years have proved us right. I said then, and I say now, that some of the proposals in that document were wrongly conceived, because they depended upon centralised ministerial power, which, in the sort of democratic society that we now see developing, is the wrong way to proceed. We should have the minimum of centralised ministerial intervention.

Mr. Ray Carter: Does not the Minister agree that he has precisely spelled out why the Opposition is now opposing the Bill? He has said that there is a distinct difference between "In Place of Strife" and his Bill. His Bill sets up a framework of law in a way that "In Place of Strife" did not. That is why we are opposing the Bill.

Mr. Carr: I cannot stop Front Bench or back-bench Members opposite from enjoying their somersaults and other gymnastic exercises; the fact remains that there were many provisions in "In Place of Strife" with which we agreed then and agree now. They are in this Bill.

Mrs. Castle: On a point of order. I am looking forward immensely to debating these points with the Minister, but in moving my Amendment I referred only to the principles outlined in the Clause. I dealt with the principle of a voluntary system of collective bargaining as against a prices and incomes policy. Is not the right hon. Gentleman trying to make another of his generalised Second Reading speeches, instead of answering the debate?

The Temporary Chairman: In reply to the right hon. Lady, I was under the impression that when I took the Chair we were having a fairly wide-ranging debate. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman has heard the right hon. Lady's words and will bear them in mind.

Mr. Harold Walker: Except for two or three minutes, I have been present during the whole of the debate. I do not recall any reference either to my right hon. Friend's earlier Bill or to "In Place of Strife". I make no complaint if the right hon. Gentleman wants to take us back over the whole history of the last two years; I merely ask for your assurance, Mr. Godman Irvine, that I shall subsequently be given an opportunity both to correct the distortions of the Minister and to fill in the lengthy gaps in the account that he has put before the House.

The Temporary Chairman: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has heard what has been said. He knows what is in the Amendment.

Mr. Carr: I shall cease to follow the wide-ranging example set me by the right


hon. Lady and shall confine my remarks within narrower limits. I would point out to the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) that it was in response to pressure from his side of the House that I dealt with "In Place of Strife". It was when I hesitated to do so that I was met with cries of "Answer!" from the benches opposite.
This Amendment, Mr. Godman Irvine, to the first part of the Bill deals with a Clause which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) said was of a kind which in olden days would have been in a Preamble and not in the main part of a Bill. However that may be, I agree with the opposition that what is in Clause 1 is important.
6.30 p.m.
It is right to state fairly clearly and, I hope, in fairly clear language, the basic principles which we are trying to further by our legislation. I believe that is important, but at the same time the Committee should recognise that here we are stating the basic principles. The detail of the wording, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West indicated, is important here, but becomes much more important when we come to further provisions later on.
I should have thought that this first principle of all that we are stating was short and simple. I cannot understand how it can be regarded as arrogant. I should have thought that it enunciated a principle on which, whatever else we may disagree about in Committee, we would have been unanimous. The first principle of the system of industrial relations we seek to promote is that of collective bargaining freely and responsibly conducted. That is a pretty basic, simple statement of something which I should have thought generations of trade unionists would have assented to.

Mr. John Mendelson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise the simple point that these principles are his figleaf, contradicted by what he is trying to do later on in the Bill, and that we should be failing in our duty if we did not point that out to the country at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Carr: The hon. Gentleman might better convince the country that we are failing to implement this principle when we reach those parts of the Bill.
We are talking of the first principle, which I believe is right and widely accepted by a vast majority of the hon. Gentleman's supporters in the country, as well as the House, and by trade union members generally. Collective bargaining freely and responsibly conducted should be one of the basic principles we are trying to promote. That is certainly our purpose. It will be for the Committee to examine, as we go through the Bill to what degree of success we are or are not promoting that purpose. Here is a substantial principle simply stated. I cannot understand the need for the Amendment.
I notice two things about the Amendment. First, it cuts out the word "responsibly". Freedom consistent with responsibility is the theme running through the principles in Clause 1, throughout the Bill and throughout the whole purpose of the policy which we on this side of the House have been putting before the country in ever-increasing detail for the last five years: freedom with responsibility.
"Responsibility" to us, if I may say so to the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), means what he said it meant, namely that it must be conducted by properly authorised people. No one can pretend that that is always the case at present. It seems to be an essence of responsibility in collective bargaining and orderly collective bargaining, that the people conducting it should be duly authorised by those they claim to represent and the unions of which they are members. That is a fairly general concept but one which I believe ought to be stated in those basic terms. But, secondly, to us it also means responsibility to the interests of the community as a whole. In saying that, we are expressing in the Bill an ever-increasing wish, desire and feeling of the overwhelming majority of people in this country, be they trade unionists or anybody else. I cannot agree to an Amendment which would remove the word "responsibly" from this guiding principle.

Mr. Paul B. Rose: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that in every case that comes before the National Industrial Relations


Court, the judge will have to bear in mind this particular word and interpret it according to the meaning at that particular time? If so, will he explain how on earth that court will ever conduct any business?

Mr. Carr: I am quite convinced that the court will be able to conduct business. We are saying to the court, the Secretary of State and the other institutions involved that they shall have regard to these principles. I utterly refuse to believe that courts, tribunals, the Secretary of State, the Commission on Industrial Relations or any of these bodies that one likes to mention will be unable to look at these guiding principles and understand the broad objectives that we are trying to seek.
The interpretative work comes when the courts have to interpret the later Clauses, but I am in no doubt that this is a sufficiently clear indication of the guiding principles to give to those who will have to operate and be responsible for the operation of the Bill when it becomes an Act.

Mr. Paget: I wish to make one point on this because it seems tremendously important. We have built up a judicial system which has been the admiration of the world and which is based absolutely upon the principle that the advocate is responsible to his client and to no one else, both in the context of the case and in negotiations which form so large a part of his function. He must look to his client's interest and no one else's. If this word is to slip in, we should proceed on quite a different principle, with the people negotiating no longer being responsible to their clients and the people who represent them but responsible to someone else. The right hon. Gentleman is introducing a word with enormous meaning and which is contrary to all judicial custom of our people.

Mr. Carr: The hon. and learned Gentleman is taking what I said, and what is in the Bill, far further than is justified. If he will—

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Carr: I must reply to one hon. and learned Gentleman before I give way to another. If the hon. and learned

Gentleman looks at subsection (2) of the Clause, he will see that we are not applying these guiding principles to advocates, trade union officials or employers' association officials. We are saying that, with a view to fulfilling that purpose, these principles should be regarded as guiding principles by the Secretary of State, the Commission on Industrial Relations, the Chief Registrar and so on, and, in subsection (2,b), by the National Industrial Relations Court and by the Industrial Tribunal. That does not mean the whole court and those who appear before the court.

Mr. Paget: I would entirely agree. Subsection (2) applies to the whole of the principles. Here we are dealing with a word governing a situation in subsection (1), the process of collective bargaining freely and responsibly conducted. That is the bargaining process. The bargaining process surely must be by representatives responsible, and responsible only, to the people who appoint them. When one comes to the other considerations, those which have to be considered by all the others set out in subsection (1), one is simply dealing with the bargaining representative and saying that he is responsible to somebody other than the person who appoints him, which would seem to me to be completely revolutionary and wrong.

Mr. Carr: I am not a lawyer and I must bow to the hon. and learned Gentleman's expert views on the law. The point he was making was that there was something in the Bill which in some way was putting those who might act as advocates in some sort of improper position vis-à-vis the clients they represent. I do not believe that to be the case. Equally, it is an extraordinarily and unacceptably narrow interpretation of the Bill to say that it is wrong for Parliament to lay down as a guiding principle that those who take part in collective bargaining which affects not only their interests but increasingly those of the whole community should not have some duty to do so responsibly and, while properly taking their own interests into account, should also have some duty as a guiding principle to take into account responsibly the interests of the community of which they are members. If Parliament cannot do that, we shall get ourselves into a pretty fix.

Mr. Paget: But the right hon. Gentleman must realise that the proposition that he is putting forward is precisely that which a Commissar of Justice would put forward in a Communist country. He would say that an advocate has no right to represent his client and must always bear in mind the interests of the State. That is an argument which we in a free society reject fundamentally. If you put this special meaning on "responsibly"—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. The Chair is not putting any special meaning on the word.

Mr. Paget: I apologise, Mr. Godman Irvine. If the right hon. Gentleman puts this special meaning on "responsibly", he is taking the Communist position.

Mr. Carr: I find that difficult to believe, or even to understand. I repeat that I am not a lawyer. I have had the good fortune not to have to appear in court, any more than to practise in court. But I have, as a layman, always understood that British courts automatically take into account the underlying thought in reaching their judgments that actions have to be decided on the basis of whether they are equitable, fair, and just in the context of the community in which we live; otherwise, the law does not seem to have any sense.
If there is an abstruse though important legal principle involved here, no doubt we shall be able to return to it at a later stage, when someone qualified in technical terms can deal with it. But I repeat that when the people—

Mr. James Tinn: On a point of order. The right hon. Gentleman has just admitted his lack of legal knowledge on this point, which one is inclined to accept. He has given the assurance that it will be dealt with later. However, I sat through the Second Reading debate, and I remember similar undertakings being given by the right hon. Gentleman and others which were conspicuously dishonoured in the winding-up speech of the Solicitor-General.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. That is not a point of order.

Mr. McNamara: Further to that point of order—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I have just ruled that it was not a point of of order. I do not propose to take further points on what is not a point of order.

Mr. McNamara: Then, on a fresh point of order. The Secretary of State has suggested that this is a matter to which we can return at a later stage. You will recall, Mr. Godman Irvine, that we have now had four and possibly five definitions of "responsibly", and not the mere three with which we began the debate. My point of order is an important one. The choice of what shall be discussed on Report does not lie with the Front Bench opposite. It lies with the occupant of the Chair. The Government appear to be pre-empting the right of the Chair by saying that we may possibly return to this point at a later stage. Surely the Government must give the Committee a clear definition of their view about the meaning of the word "responsibly" now.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. Neither of those points are points of order for the Chair.

Mr. Carr: Let me make it clear that I do not apply what I am about to say to the hon. and learned Member for Northampton. When I hear these points of order, if I may call them that, I am reinforced in my original impression on reading the Amendment that it is no more than nit-picking filibustering—

Mr. McNamara: rose—

Mr. Carr: No, I will not give way—

Mr. McNamara: rose—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. If the right hon. Gentleman does not give way, the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) must remain seated.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Carr: I do not mind how many times I say this because, every time I do so and every time anyone outside hears it, I feel more confident than I am about most matters that the vast majority of people agree that one of the guiding principles of any industrial relations system to be promoted in this country is that of collective bargaining freely and responsibly conducted.

Mrs. Castle: But what does it mean?

Mr. Carr: Precisely what it says. The courts have never found it difficult to give judgment on what is reasonable, fair, equitable, just and responsible in relation to the circumstances of the time. I believe that to be the position here.
I repeat on behalf of the Government—

Mr. John Mendelson: The right hon. Gentleman must define the terms of the Bill.

Mr. Carr: I am trying to make my speech. More time will be left for other hon. Members to make speeches if the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) allows me to continue.
I am in no doubt when I say that the Government are not prepared to accept an Amendment removing the word "responsibly" from this first guiding principle. In due course, the Committee must decide about that in the normal way if it wishes, but that is firmly the view of the Government.

Mr. Dan Jones: rose—

Mr. Carr: I have given way to the hon. Member several times. Since this is a Committee stage, no doubt he has more freedom to make a speech of his own than would be the case if we were not in Committee.
Looking at the Amendment, the second point that one sees is that it brings in the words "on a voluntary basis". In this instance, I find myself in agreement with the hon. and learned Member for Northampton. It must be superfluous to insert the words "on a voluntary basis" into a phrase containing the word "freely". If it is not a meaningless repetition of the word "freely", what do the Opposition imply by the phrase "on a voluntary basis"? It has not been clear from the speeches that we have heard so far. Are they saying that, by including the words "on a voluntary basis", they believe that collective bargaining should be completely outside the law—presumably outside the present law as well as the new law?
I cannot believe that that is a proposition which the Committee should accept. If we carry the principle further, it means that the Opposition would, for example, wish to repeal the Terms and Conditions of Employment Act, 1959, if the words

"on a voluntary basis" are intended to mean something additional to the word "freely" already in the Clause.
The same must apply to the other policies which the Labour Party pursued when in Government and, so far as I know, still believe in today.
The right hon. Lady and, I think, the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, North used the word "hypocrisy" in relation to those proposals. What about the Opposition's attitude? How does an Opposition Amendment which talks about freedom but wants to cut out responsibility and to use the phrase "on a voluntary basis", apparently in the sense that this should be outside the law, square with a party which, as the Government, until a few months ago, was pursuing a statutory incomes policy?

Mrs. Castle: The whole point is that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite repudiated the prices and incomes policy. They said that they did not believe in it. The right hon. Gentleman, as I have already quoted, in the debate on the Consultative Document said that collective bargaining ought to be "free from State control". I say that the Government have changed their mind. They are operating an incomes policy, and they ought to have the honesty to admit it. They should define it and put it before the Committee for approval instead of hiding behind vague generalisations like "responsibly".

Mr. Carr: The right hon. Lady is quite wrong. If the right hon. Lady looks back at the view which we took when in Opposition—I led for the then Opposition in this subject in 1967 and 1968 on the Prices and Incomes Acts of those years—she will see that I made clear that past Conservative Governments had tried to influence the movement of incomes, that any Government in a modern economy would have to do so, and that a future Conservative Government would have to do so. That is on record. The right hon. Lady can look it up in HANSARD. It has been repeated over and over again by spokesmen for my party. What we objected to then, what we said would not and did not work, what we said would cause and has caused many ill side effects on industrial relations, was a statutory incomes policy


designed to upset the results, once achieved, of collective bargaining. There is all the difference between those two propositions. The right hon. Lady, or anybody inside or outside the House, can read in HANSARD what I then said with the full support of my party. That will prove that I am absolutely right in what I have just said. But, as we pointed out, that is totally inconsistent with free and responsible collective bargaining. Responsible and free collective bargaining, if it is to be allowed to go on, as it must be allowed to go on, must involve a degree of self-discipline, self-regulation, of the acceptance of some framework of rules, because that is the condition of freedom and non-intervention by the State in the details of doing business. That is, or ought to be, true of industrial relations as of any other activity in which citizens indulge. The freedom which we exercise cannot be exercised without regard to other people's freedom and the freedom and interests of the community as a whole.
In whatever capacity we act, whether as trade unionists, private citizens or company directors—any category one may care to mention—we must at all times in a free society admit that our freedom shall to some extent be circumscribed by the interests of other people's freedom and the interests of the community at large. Our view is that if we expect our interests to be circumscribed in that way—I know of no other basis on which a free community with any sense of responsibility and progress can rest—then it is right that those circumscribing rules should be written into the law of the land.
That is what we are doing. We are now talking about one of the principles which should guide the rules which lay down the conditions by which those who conduct industrial relations can expect to do that job in freedom without constant detailed State intervention.

Mr. Douglas: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that our objection is the particular connotation which he is placing on the words "national interest" without spelling it out in legislative form?

Mr. Carr: If the hon. Gentleman believes that, I accept that he believes it and am prepared to leave the judgment to others.
I am talking about this "voluntary basis", which is the other part of the Amendment. I remind the Committee that we have moved from talk about "responsible".
How can the Amendment be consistent with what the Opposition, when in power, practised until a few months ago? There is not only the statutory incomes policy; there is the whole policy of "In Place of Strife", although the hon. Member for Burnley now tells us that that is buried. There is the whole question of registration, of recognition disputes being settled in the end by Ministerial order; there is the whole question of the possibility of a strike ballot and of a conciliation clause. Let us forget for the moment the strike ballot and the conciliation clause, because we know that the then Government ran away from those. But it is news that they ever ran away from all the other issues which they said were vital in "In Place of Strife". Those vital issues involved intervention and putting industrial relations within legal control—not always in the kind of legal control with which we agreed, but at least they involved legal control.
It is inconsistent to talk about "on a voluntary basis" if by that the Opposition mean that collective bargaining is to be outside the law, outside a system of rules laid down in the interests of the community.
The right hon. Lady said that terms like "responsibly" and "freely" could not be accepted because we had in some way prostituted or destroyed—I forget the actual word used—the basis of conciliation and any reasonable belief in arbitration. This really is the greatest nonsense.
How have we done that? Because we have dared to say that there is a national interest? Because we, as the Government, have dared to proclaim that cost inflation is the single, not the only, most important problem with which we have to deal today? Is that undermining any reasonable belief in arbitration?
I wonder what the right hon. Lady would have done if she had been faced with offers—

Mr. Roland Moyle: rose—

Mr. Carr: I will not give way for the moment. What would the right hon.


Lady have done if she had been faced with offers made by employers four, five or perhaps six times higher than the amount which she said was allowable in the national interest in her Prices and Incomes White Paper? Would she have called in conciliation without saying, "This cannot be used to increase an offer which is already three, four, five, six times higher than I and my colleagues in the Government have said is the most that can be afforded in the national interest"? I am sure that she would not.
7.0 p.m.
What did the right hon. Lady say in the name of her Government not much more than a year ago in the last productivity, prices and incomes policy White Paper? In the White Paper headed "Productivity, Prices and Incomes Policy after 1969"—this takes us to within a few days of where we are—she said:
… most wage and salary settlements need to fall in the range of 2½—4½ per cent. increase in a year if this aim of greater price stability is to be achieved.
Those were her and her Government's words to the country.
Let us consider the case of the Post Office workers. After the right hon. Lady had made that statement in her White Paper the Post Office workers received a 12 per cent. increase. They have now been offered another 8 per cent.—[Interruption.]—Maybe it is a shame, Maybe it is wrong. As I said at the beginning, the hon. Member for Salford, West has a right to say that, but the right hon. Lady has no right to make such a statement, nor have all but a few of her colleagues. The only people who are able to make that statement are those very few who had the courage to abstain from voting for, if not to vote against the right hon. Lady's White Paper about a week before Christmas, 1969, and not one other hon. Member on the benches opposite has the slightest moral and honest right to take the line that they are taking.

Mr. Moyle: The right hon. Gentleman is accusing us of inconsistency. He said earlier that one of the undertakings that he gave on behalf of his party when he was in Opposition was that there would be no State interference in collective bargaining agreements once they had been reached. The right hon. Gentleman

will recall the strike of the local authority manual workers, in which both sides agreed to the appointment of Jack Scamp. He reported, both sides accepted the report, and then the Prime Minister criticised Jack Scamp for making that report. How does the right hon. Gentleman square what he said earlier with the Prime Minister's criticism of Jack Scamp? How can the right hon. Gentleman accuse us of inconsistency?

Mr. Carr: Have we really reached the stage in this country that the Government are not free, or are somehow wrong, to comment on and state what they believe to be in the national interest? The findings of the Scamp Committee were applied. The right hon. Lady and others have said that we made an unfair example of public service workers. Have they forgotten that not only did the local authority manual workers get the 15 per cent.-plus that was awarded by Sir Jack Scamp's Committee—an inquiry which was not appointed by the Government—but that, following that report, because there has always been a close connection between the two, the Government gave the same percentage increase to their own employees in the National Health Service a fine example of discrimination against public service workers! There is no evidence of discrimination against public sector workers. They have been getting several times what the right hon. Lady said was the maximum which should be considered under normal circumstances in any incomes policy after 1969.

Mrs. Castle: The only people who have any moral authority to try to influence wage settlements, as the Government are now crudely and persistently doing in one sector of the economy, are those who have had the courage to go to the country on the basis of a belief that the criterion of the national interest has to be injected into wage bargaining. Right hon. Gentlemen went to the country on the exact opposite. They went to the country on the argument that one could not blame the workers for wage increases, that the trouble was at the prices end and inflation ought to be dealt with by acting on prices.

Mr. Carr: I believe, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister does, that the country bases its choice on deeds rather than on words. It is a fine thing to publish a White Paper like this, force it


through the House of Commons a week before Christmas, 1969, and a week after cease altogether to operate it. Where were these criteria operating between 1st January, 1970, and 18th June, 1970? The Committee and the country will be glad to be told where.

Mr. Harold Walker: rose—

Mr. Carr: I cannot give way, because I want to come to the end of my speech.
We are saying that if we appoint any form of arbitrating or conciliating body the national interests must be taken into account. What happened when the right hon. Lady was in power? She issued a White Paper and, as I understood the position, under her policy arbitrators and courts of inquiry were ordered to read and take into account the criterion in that White Paper. Many of the claims which have been settled since this Government came to office—not that of the Post Office workers—were launched and were far advanced in their prosecution before the right hon. Lady left office. Had they gone to arbitration, they could have done so only on the basis of the arbitrators having to take account of a White Paper which laid down maximum amounts far below what the employers had offered, and against which strikes were threatened. If that was not a case of trying to influence arbitrators, I do not know what was.
I do not say that the right hon. Lady and the then Government were wrong in what they did, because I believe that any Government must, and the country must demand that any Government will, request that in the process of collective bargaining the national interest as a whole should be taken into account, as well as the narrow interests of the parties concerned in the bargain. I believe, too, that when collective bargaining unfortunately breaks down and one is faced with a strike, or the threat of a strike, when one is faced with the need for conciliation or arbitration, then the Government should say to those who have to arbitrate or conciliate that one of the factors which must be taken into account is the national interest as a whole. I do not believe that that is inconsistent with the best possible approach to free collective bargaining. I believe that it is possible in a world

which is no doubt imperfect but is the one in which we have to live.
The Government cannot accept an Amendment which removes the word "responsibly" from the Bill and appears to wish to introduce, in addition to the word "freely", the phrase "on a voluntary basis", with the implication that that means without regard to the law, or without regard to the public interest as a whole.

[Sir R. GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

Mr. John Mendelson: The right hon. Gentleman will realise, even though some of his supporters may not yet do so, that during the Committee debate on this important Bill he will be obliged to define his terms. For the benefit of the right hon. Gentleman who was talking to the Solicitor-General, I shall repeat what I have just said. The right hon. Gentleman, with his experience, will realise, though some of his supporters may not, that in Committee he will have to define his terms closely and not leave things to the Law Officers of the Crown, because this is his Bill.
My hon. Friend was right when, a short time ago, he reminded the right hon. Gentleman that during the Second Reading debate, on every occasion when he was asked material questions by my hon. Friends on the back benches, and by one of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, I think my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose), he refused to answer, saying that when his right hon. Friend wound up the debate he would deal with the legal points, but when the Solicitor-General replied at the end of the Second Reading debate he gave no replies at all to the legal points that had been raised. It is important at the very opening of the Committee to put this deliberate evasion on record. The Solicitor-General, instead of answering the Second Reading debate, spent time making propaganda speeches about statements made by Ministers in the last Government.
It is easy for the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues now to spend their time making propaganda, making election speeches, but the country will understand and as the trade union movement and most responsible—and I use the word in its customary meaning—employers will understand that this is a highly difficult


Measure, introducing many new procedures, and it is the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to discuss his Bill's provisions. I know that I will find support on the other side for saying that, particularly from members of the legal profession, who have a direct interest in the Bill's legal provisions.
The right hon. Gentleman will realise as the Committee continues that if he thinks it terribly clever to spend his time quoting again and again from the history of this Parliament and the previous Government and trying to divide the ranks on this side by easy references to what has been said in previous debates the Committee will be bored with him within 24 hours, nor will the country be interested. He has to answer on every point of the Bill.
That being so, I begin with reference to the word "responsibly" of which he made light. He failed completely to answer the questions put to him by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) or by some of my hon. Friends. He tried to get away with a general description of responsibility with which every schoolchild will agree, but that is no reason for putting the word in the Bill. If he does not merely want to make propaganda by putting it in the Bill he must have a clear definition of his terms. He knows that the courts will have to interpret the measure, and what we do not want, and I use my words advisedly, is the gradual approach to a corporate State introduced by legislative terms that are not clearly defined in debate. That is why we are absolutely right to press this Amendment now.
The second point involved is the voluntary system of collective bargaining. Here, the right hon. Gentleman must address himself to the Donovan Report and to the legal opinion already being expressed as to the decisive step he wants to make. Let us have out of the way once and for all the history the Minister seeks to introduce on each occasion.
I speak as one who opposed "In Place of Strife", but the Minister has to remember, as has the country, that the Bill on industrial reform which my right hon. Friend introduced before the General Election was fundamentally different from this Measure. It contained entirely different provisions; provisions intended to help the system of voluntary collective

bargaining. The right hon. Gentleman should not be allowed to get away with his attempt to blind the people to this important fact.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: If the hon. Member examines "In Place of Strife" and this Bill he will find that they are identical twins.

Mr. Mendelson: I am accustomed to being misunderstood by the hon. Gentleman, and for the best motives. The hon. Gentleman has not grasped what I said. I cannot be angry with him for that, so I must do as is done at school, and explain it to him again.
I said that the Bill introduced before 18th June by the previous Government and by my right hon. Friend contained provisions entirely designed, with the unanimous support of the Parliamentary Labour Party, to support a system of voluntary collective bargaining, and the hon. Gentleman will not fog the issue by talking about something else.
The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that he must address himself to the charge already made by a number of legal authorities, including Professor Wedderburn, Professor of Industrial Law at the University of London, who specialise particularly in this field. He has to address himself to the charge that he is here introducing a legal straitjacket in the form of provisions designed to reduce the bargaining power of the trade union movement. That is why the argument over the word "voluntary" not merely academic, and that is why it is right that we should deal with this aspect at the Committee's very first sitting.
7.15 p.m.
The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that a man as experienced as George Woodcock, who was for many years General Secretary of the Trades Union Congress, and who was also for more than 20 years in an almost equally influential position as Assistant General Secretary of the Trades Union Congress, has always held that what makes our trade union movement work effectively is its voluntary nature.
The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that if he is trying to limit, and in the long run destroy, the influence of shop stewards, that is something which is vastly popular at Tory conferences.


The word has only to be mentioned to raise a cheer from a lot of people there. But we do not get the same cheers from the people who run the steel works in my area; from the people engaged in the main engineering works there, or from the men who run Newton Chambers in my constituency. Those people have learned to work with a body of responsible shop stewards who are doing some of the best things to improve and maintain industrial relations.
The Minister knows that this is true: I do not charge him with ignorance in this matter. I warn him that if he wants to be an effective Secretary of State for Employment, a position which includes all the old jobs of him who used to be called the Minister of Labour, he will need a fair mind and a realistic approach to these matters, and that denunciations will not help him.
I do not wish now to enter into a debate with the right hon. Gentleman on the present position in the Post Office—the time and place for that will be tomorrow afternoon when, I hope, he will make a statement—but there is a growing feeling amongst the firmest believers in a voluntary system of collective bargaining that if the right hon. Gentleman is over-persuaded by some of those amongst his own supporters who do not understand our trade union movement he will end in a situation that he will be the very first to regret.

Mr. Frederick Lee: As I listened to the Secretary of State I came to the conclusion that, like his right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), I could not understand why we have this wording at all. When he tried to explain, he almost gave the impression that the Government were introducing something which meant that the principle of collective bargaining freely and responsibily conducted was coming into our industrial relations for the first time. No matter how anti-trade union may be the opinion of hon. Members opposite, if the right hon. Gentleman knows anything at all about our collective bargaining system he knows that it has led the world in the sphere of industrial relations. He is certainly not doing anything new by inserting this as the principle upon which the Bill is based. Clause 1 lays down a number of

principles, none of which is new, and all of which have come to us over the years and could surely, as the right hon. Mem-for Wolverhampton, South-West said, have been put in some way not really included within the Bill itself.
The Secretary of State was contrasting this Bill with the Labour Government's prices and incomes policy. Let me make one point clear. Whatever the Labour Government did with their prices and incomes policy, they did with the consent of the House. It was legislation enacted in this Chamber which guided that Government in the way they approached prices and incomes. My charge against the present Government—one need only look at the problems we have had in the last few months—is that they are conducting a most discriminatory incomes policy without coming to the House and getting any consent at all for that kind of policy. The right hon. Gentleman said that the rules should be written in the law of the land. That is precisely what we did in our policies, which the Conservative Party condemned, and it is precisely what the present Government are not doing in this legislation.
Let us look at the ways in which Government interference is taking place. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) mentioned some. I will go further back, because I have a long memory for these things. We have seen Government interference in the case of the power workers' claim. The case I am going to refer to I also referred to in the last Parliament. I have not referred to it since then because I did not want to cause trouble in the situation. It has not yet been referred to in this debate.
In 1961 the power workers got an agreement with the Electricity Council. It was accepted by both sides. The Prime Minister then, Mr. Harold Macmillan, came to the House, and used that Dispatch Box to deliver a public reprimand to the Chairman of the Electricity Council for daring to conclude that agreement, which was higher than the Government wanted him to conclude. But what did the Secretary of State say to us when he was in Opposition? He opposed our prices and incomes policy because, he said, he objected to interference with the results of collective bargaining.
As I have said, I did not mention this matter during the recent period in which


the power workers were in dispute because I did not want to exacerbate a problem which was, clearly, going to cause a lot of trouble. But it is no use the Government now pretending that they are merely conducting something which they are getting through this Committee and that they are not interfering with collective bargaining in any way. We all know perfectly well—and there are other cases than the one I have quoted—that they went to the most extreme length, after collective bargaining had produced a result, to interfere with that result, which had been achieved between employers and trade unions.

Mr. Orme: The nurses' case as well.

Mr. Lee: The nurses' claim is another case in point, as my hon. Friend says. I cannot understand why we are now having to argue about something which has been enshrined in collective bargaining for a very long time—
the principle of collective bargaining freely and responsibly conducted".
The Government's reasons are rather different. They do not object to free collective bargaining, responsibly conducted, but what they will not guarantee is that the results of that free collective bargaining, responsibly conducted, will be allowed to stand. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to interrupt me now and tell us that they will always accept
the principle of collective bargaining freely and responsibly conducted
and will accept the results which come from it. I will give way if he wishes to interrupt. I see that he does not. There we are! This is the nub of the whole thing. This is what the debate is about.
No matter what attitude we took at the time—and I will defend the position I took on prices and incomes—when we were in Government we asked the House for permission to legislate along certain lines. We asked for the power to defer an increase. The Conservative reaction was that we had no right to do so, never mind the public interest, which the right hon. Gentleman is now introducing. It was because of the public interest that we had a prices and incomes policy.
We in the Labour Party disagreed amongst each other. Some of my hon. Friends said that the economy was not so planned that we could have a prices

and incomes policy and do it fairly. They were entitled to say that. I did not agree with them. I believed that the case was the other way round, that the prices and incomes policy was an inevitable and essential part of the planning of the economy which we must have. But we differed on the issue honourably and openly, and the Government then asked the House to give a majority for that policy. The House gave it.
I will state quite frankly what I see as what happened towards the end of that Government's life. Because the Conservative Party was able to exploit the political dilemma in which we were fixed in having a prices and incomes policy which, of course, was unpopular, it was able to get more and more political popularity on the strength of condemning that policy, and it did it unscrupulously. It was a squalid campaign. Therefore, the Labour Party had to begin to back away from that policy, there were political reasons why it had to. Those reasons were the hypocrisy and chicanery of the Conservative Party.
Whenever the discussions at Downing Street are mentioned, we get reference to the "climb down" and "running away". If ever there was an ignorant, almost illiterate, statement, it is that sort of condemnation. I can show the Committee speeches which I made 25 years ago in the House asking the trade union movement to do precisely what it did at Downing Street that morning. The great problem of the British trade union movement has been that there has been no power, no authority, at the centre. As a Minister, I had to meet personal friends of mine who were on the Economic Committee of the T.U.C. They had no power to agree with me about anything except resolution No. 400 from the Congress of the year before. What happened at Downing Street that morning was that for the first time in the history of British trade unionism the constituent trade unions gave authority to the T.U.C. General Council to intervene in unofficial strikes. It was a momentous step forward. I do not understand why the Labour Party does not keep on proclaiming it.
7.30 p.m.
Vic Feather has achieved enormous success in intervening. I deplored one of


his successes. During the General Election the Tory Press was enabled to continue with its vituperations simply because Vic Feather got the printers back to work. Democracy cannot work much better than that.
In those days we clearly stated what we expected from the trade unions. The unions came a long way towards being helpful. Now, in a Bill which we are invited to believe has been introduced to improve industrial relations, the Tory Party has deliberately antagonised everything which is of the best in the trade union movement. Trade unionists are unanimously worried sick about where they go from here.
I have stated my belief as to what lies behind the bringing into legislation of the words we are discussing, because they need no introduction. They have been with us since the beginning of the century. Is any hon. Member opposite arguing that the British trade union movement, which led the world in introducing collective bargaining, did not do so responsibly and freely?
I agree that there are limitations in the Amendment, but they are induced because it is not the Government's intention in including these words to allow all bargaining to be free and responsible. They have not the slightest intention of permitting bargaining to go on without challenge which produces results which they do not like. I believe that this is the principle we are discussing. I invite the Minister to interrupt me if he cares to deny it.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: Are we to take the Minister's silence during the whole of my right hon. Friend's comments as meaning that the Government reserve the right to intervene in freely negotiated agreements? I take it that the fact that the Minister is not answering the debate and is refusing to comment on what my right hon. Friend is saying means that the Government are reserving the right to make direct intervention.

Mr. Lee: That is my interpretation. I voluntarily and freely offered the Minister the facility to interrupt me, and in so doing felt almost like Sydney Carton waiting for the blow to fall.
I believe that resurrecting this kind of behind-the-scenes diplomacy, for which the Government have not the courage to obtain the permission of the House of Commons, and introducing this lawyers' paradise will do nothing but harm. In saying that at the end of the day we shall all be hon. and learned Gentlemen I mean no disrespect to the lawyers. The introduction of so much ambiguity into our industrial relations will breed suspicion of a type which we have not seen before. In my day I would take the employer's word for things; I conducted negotiations for 30,000 people for years and did not bother about written agreements.

Mr. Orme: Custom and practice.

Mr. Lee: Custom and practice were the basis of it all. They cannot function in a foggy atmosphere like this. I hope that the Minister will have second thoughts and take the Clause back.

[Mr. E. L. MALLALIEU in the Chair]

Mr. John Pardoe: In a way I am rather sorry that I was not called before the Minister replied, because I take a slightly different view from him and from that expressed by right hon. and hon. Members on this side. In other words, I intend to vote for responsibility and for democracy. I wish that the Minister had directed a few of his words to Amendment No. 345, on which I understand that there can be a separate vote. If that is so, I shall undoubtedly vote for that Amendment.
"Responsibly" has been a matter of discussion this afternoon, and various interpretations have been put upon it. I do not think that that argument is particularly important to the Bill, although if the word is defined in the way in which the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) defined it it is obviously a matter of great argument amongst us.
The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) said that "responsibly" meant that the negotiations—the collective bargaining—would have to be carried out by responsibly constituted bodies—by people who were responsible to those whom they were representing.
The right hon. Lady showed clearly that by "responsibly" she was afraid that


the Government wanted to introduce the national interest. If that is so, it is undoubtedly a matter of some substance. The right hon. Lady said that the Government were trying to interfere with employers in the public sector and that the Labour Party wanted to stop that. I am on the side of responsibility and I am on the side of the public interest being taken into account.
I agree entirely with the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) that we are never likely to have to come to court on the Clause. Nevertheless, this is obviously a matter of considerable importance in the whole conduct of the debate on the Bill. Should collective bargaining be carried on with the national interest as a factor to be taken into account? If it should, how should we achieve it? I believe that the national interest must on occasion be a factor.
The hon. and learned Member for Northampton adduced the interesting parallel of the lawyer being responsible only to his client. The lawyer is not totally and in an unlimited sense responsible only to his client. The advocate—the barrister-at-law—is ringed around by rules. For instance, he cannot get together with his client and concoct evidence, because that is deemed to be "against the national interest" Therefore, if we are using the word "responsibly" in this context the Minister is right in saying that we must introduce it.
I think I am right in supposing that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West would disagree with this. He would probably say, though he did not this afternoon, that competition would in most cases—he would hope in all cases, I suspect—take care of the public interest. I agree that in many cases competition will take care of the public interest, and it ought to be the function of the Government to ensure that competition exists in every possible sphere, so that it can take care of the public interest. Where it does take care of the public interest, that is a very much healthier situation.
Unfortunately, there are situations where no competition exists at present. After all, there is no competition in the public sector. Public employers are not subject to that element of competition which the right hon. Gentleman and I and

many hon. Members on both sides deserve. Perhaps there ought to be competition in the postal services. I am coming around to the view that there should be competition in the postal services, in company with a recent publication by the Institute of Economic Affairs. However, at present there is none, so that is not a point of argument. Who, in the postal services situation, must be responsible for the interest of the consumer?
The right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn attacked some of the Treasury evidence presented to the Wilberforce inquiry, though some of the words she used may have been contained in the speech which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made in Birmingham recently, when she pointed to the sentiment:
The inflationary spiral can be broken only by reducing the level of wage settlements.
There are occasions when inflation occurs not as the result of the pressure of wages, though I believe that it has been occurring recently because of that pressure; and undoubtedly the Government are at present involved in many negotiations in the national interest to reverse this process.
Many of these negotiations are being conducted in a responsible manner and we must bear in mind some of the speeches on this subject that have been made by Labour hon. Members. For example, do they recall what they said about the Government being represented on the Burnham Committee when the discussions between the teachers and local authorities were going on? Socialist hon. Members said before coming into Government, though they did not say it when in power, that the Minister's representatives should be absent from those negotiations.
I maintain, on this basis, that "responsibly" in this context means conducting negotiations and taking account of the wider effects of the actions of collective bargaining, and because of this I am in favour of this sort of responsibility. After all, if the Government must always be absent from collective bargaining, as many Labour hon. Members have argued, why should they not be absent from collective bargaining affecting interest rates, credit control, hire purchase rates and so on?
It is possible that wage inflation could be reversed by competition, but that


would mean a totally unacceptable level of unemployment; and since such a solution cannot be accepted, politically, socially or economically, and since the Government are responsible for ensuring that the cost of living does not go up, then they must be able to get into the act and see that these are bargains negotiated in a collective, but also in a responsible, manner.
Many unjust points have been made about Wilberforce. I agree that it was crassly tactless of the Government to appoint a committee which seemed to be so closely connected with the Tory cause. I am being charitable in using those terms. For example, I am sorry that the chairman should have been an ex-Conservative candidate. However, it is wrong to suggest that because Mr. Ray Brookes has contributed to the Conservative Party through his company he is too tightly tied to the Tory colours. I do not think he is anything like as out-and-out a Tory as some Labour hon. Members would have us believe. [Interruption].
I am probably the only person in this House who has personally approached him in his capacity as chairman of G.K.N. In my capacity as the treasurer of a political party, I approached him for cash but was turned down. [Interruption.] I still believe that he is not totally tied to the Tory Party. Indeed, I do not think his membership of it need necessarily mean that the Government are behaving in an unfair manner.
I hope the Government will accept the use of the word "democratically". Although it may seem to many that it does not matter whether or not this word appears in the Bill, it matters to me because we should, at this early stage in our debates on this Measure, appreciate the need for an extension of democracy throughout our industrial affairs. The only way to solve our industrial relations problem is to remove the aspect of the two sides—the aspect of the battle—and bring real democracy into our negotiations through, for example, works councils.
I hope we will have a chance, in debating the Bill later, to argue at length about the need for works councils in relation to the election of boards of directors and so on. This seems to be the

way to create one interest in industry. I am convinced that the employee should have the same status in his company as the shareholder. Democracy is written into the relationship between shareholder and company and there seems no reason why, at the outset of the Bill, it should not be written in between employee and company, as it is in the Companies Act.
An extension of democracy in this sense seems the only answer to the problem of the alienation of the employee from management, and this is as important as providing an answer to the problem if the alienation of the rank and file trade union member from the trade union leadership. I therefore hope that the Government will accept Amendment No. 345, and I shall vote against Amendment No. 367.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: I listened with interest to the Liberal view on industrial relations. It seemed more Right-wing, reactionary and airy-fairy than the Government's view, though since the Liberal Party has such a small trade union representation its view is not nearly as important.
I come immediately to what the Minister described as a nit-picking and filibustering Amendment. It is nothing of the sort. The issue is clear. To me three responsibilities are involved. First, the trade union is responsible to its members and its conference. That is clearly known to trade union officials and it will always be followed because they know where their responsibility lies. Whatever laws are passed, trade union officials will take notice of the views of their members and put them before those of the Government.
Secondly, the responsibility of the bosses lies with their shareholders, and, thirdly, in the same way, the responsibility of the Government is towards the electorate. These are the three main and clear dividing lines between responsibilities. However, a fourth responsibility is being introduced. The Government are trying to impose the new responsibility of the court. They are saying that trade union leaders shall be responsible not to their men but to the legislation of Parliament.
It is not only naïve but unfair of the Government to think that this could happen. Would they tell the bosses that their responsibility lies with the Government and the courts and not with their


shareholders? If they did, they would be told how wrong they were. We had the famous instance of Lord Cromer who, when Chairman of the Bank of England at the time of criticism over firms sending pounds abroad, said, in effect, "It may not be patriotic, but it is damned good business." Nobody took him to task for saying that.

Mr. Peter Tapsell: It was not Lord Cromer who said that.

Mr. Ashton: I notice that the hon. Gentleman did not attempt to deny that it was said. If it was not said by Lord Cromer, it was said by one of his contemporaries.

Mr. F. P. Crowder: On a point of order. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he has just made a most disgraceful and libellous statement?

Mr. Ashton: Nonsense.

Mr. Crowder: The hon. Gentleman's remarks were absolutely disgraceful.

Mr. Heffer: The hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friends think that they can say anything they like about the trade unions.

Mr. Crowder: I am not saying anything about trade unions. I do not see why an hon. Gentleman opposite, who is protected by privilege, should be entitled to libel Lord Cromer in that way—[Interruption.]—and, when told that Lord Cromer did not say it, then to remark, "If it was not said by Lord Cromer, it was said by one of his contemporaries". That is utter and disgraceful irresponsibility which is typical of hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. Ashton: The hon. and learned Gentleman should know that that is not a point of order. That being so, I trust that he will allow me to return to the subject under discussion, which is the Amendment, which the Minister described as nit-picking and filibustering.
If the bosses were given the same responsibility as the Government are trying to foist on to trade union leaders—if the bosses were told that they must conduct ballots among their shareholders before increasing prices or before deciding

to give an extra day's holiday to their employees, in the way that the Government are trying to shove this responsibility on to trade unions—there would be an outcry from chambers of commerce all over the country and many people in the City would say that it was not their function. Indeed, they would assert that their freedom was being interfered with by a Tory Government.
When my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) tried to introduce an early warning system covering prices, there was an outcry. Were not the firms acting against the wishes of Parliament at that time in refusing to conform with our laws? When a trade union does the same thing and says, "Our responsibility is to look after our members and we want the freedom to hold employers to ransom because we have a powerful case", that is different. When a manufacturer says, "I am going to hold people to ransom and charge 15s. for a candle because the power workers have gone on strike", that is, apparently, freedom and he is entitled to do it.
We maintain, and always have maintained, that the first function of a trade union is to protect its members and do what it can for them—not to look to the national interest. It is most certainly not its function to act as a Government. If the Government wish to take action against the trade unions, as they are now doing, let them do it; but that is the Government's responsibility, not the responsibility of the trade unions.
On Second Reading the Prime Minister said that the Bill was necessary, not only for the health of our society, but as an essential part of a long-term economic strategem. In other words, there is no responsibility to get people back to work but merely a responsibility to keep down wages. Now this fourth estate—that of the courts—is to be brought in, and it is said that the unions shall be responsible to the courts so that the Government can dodge their conciliation responsibilities. Is it any wonder that the trade unions are afraid of the courts in view of the Taff Vale judgment and other judgments? There is hardly one judgment in which the court, in interpreting the law, has come down on the side of the union. Any protection for the trade unions has


been laid down by Labour Members of Parliament and not by the courts. If it is left to the courts, they will find against the trade unions in practically every case.
Amendment No. 345 proposes the insertion of the word "democratically". We do not accept the Government's meaning of democracy. Later in the Bill there is a Clause which deals with recognition and provides that 51 per cent. of those eligible to vote must be in favour before an agency shop can be established. The Government did not get 51 per cent. of the votes of the electorate. They received only 38 per cent. of the votes of those eligible to vote. The hon. and learned Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Crowder) did not get anything like 51 per cent. of the votes of the electorate in his constituency eligible to vote. He got a democratic majority. As democrats, we agree with democracy. That is why this is not a nit-picking Amendment because democracy means a simple majority. This is why, as my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) said, we are trying to ensure that the word "democratically" is inserted in the Bill at a very early stage.

Mr. Harold Walker: The reply of the Secretary of State seemed to me to be an attempt to obfuscate his inadequate response to the arguments put forward by delving into the labyrinths of the past. He uttered a cotton-wool screen of words about past prices and incomes policy and "In Place of Strife". I intervened to ask whether I would be in order in following the right hon. Gentleman through those labyrinths. I shall eschew the temptation to do so, but I must warn him that if he persists I shall want to put the record straight on a number of points.
I was disconcerted by what seemed to me, coming from him, an unusual lack of courtesy when I sought to intervene in his speech. He had spent some time dealing with the industrial relations and prices and incomes policies of the last two years of the former Government, knowing full well that month after month I had had to stand at the Dispatch Box and answer his charges in respect of these two policies. When the policies for which a former Minister, albeit a junior Minister, was responsible are criticised, it is the usual practice in this Chamber

for the person uttering the criticism to give way.
What I wanted to ask the Secretary of State was how he reconciled his justification of the strictures of the Prime Minister on the Scamp Committee with the contrary and contradictory remarks of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on the occasion of the Kindersley Report when he criticised the Labour Government for having the audacity, as it was put, to comment on what he described as an independent body which should be allowed to do its work free from external interference. At that time, sitting on the Government Front Bench, I heard demands from the Tory Party that the doctors and consultants should be given the full 30 per cent. increase. How can the Government reconcile those demands with their strictures on people seeking—and I admit this—settlements which are inflationary but which are very substantially less than they then thought right for very well paid people in the National Health Service?
The Secretary of State refuses to accept our Amendment proposing the deletion of the word "responsibly". Throughout the debate we have asked him to define "responsibly". He has not done so, and until he does so we cannot reach a conclusion about whether it should remain in the Bill. We do not know what the Government intend should be taken into account by the National Industrial Relations Court, the industrial tribunal and the new judicial apparatus established by the Bill.
We tend to overlook that "responsibility" is a subjective word in a host of subjective concepts. It means what people want it to mean, and I suspect that that is how the Secretary of State likes it. He wants it to mean what he wants it to mean, according to the circumstances and time at which it is brought into question. Hon. Members opposite have repeatedly said that everybody knows what is and what is not responsible behaviour. I hope that everyone will behave in a responsible fashion, and we all know, in our ordinary everyday relationships, what we mean by it. I accept the right hon. Gentleman's little didactic sermon about responsibility and behaviour. It is one thing to say that it is understood—an assumption between people and society—and something quite different when it is


written into a statute which must be interpreted in the courts.
We who have had practical experience, as I know the Secretary of State has had, of applying collective agreements in industry and of working to procedure agreements are accustomed to talking about the spirit and intention of the agreement, but we know that when the spirit and intention of an agreement or a code of behaviour in industry are converted into a statute, the courts say, "We are concerned not with the spirit and the intention but with the letter of the law". That is what we are concerned with here—what the letter of the law means to the Secretary of State.
I have indicated that I accept that we should seek to behave responsibly in our relationships with each other and that hon. Members opposite have said that we all know what is meant by responsible behaviour. But I am not sure that everybody knows what is meant by responsible behaviour, least of all right hon. and hon. Members opposite, particularly in the light of what has been said today. The Secretary of State referred to one of our Amendments as a nit-picking Amendment. The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper) deplored the number of Amendments which we had tabled. I thought that we had been remarkably restrained in the number of Amendments we tabled. The number that we have tabled is low, particularly for a Bill of such a major controversial character as this is.
8.0 p.m.
Let me return to the matter of responsibility. The right hon. Gentleman referred to a television broadcast that he made in the days when the Labour Party were in Government, when he seemed to be provoking industrial workers into pursuing high wages. He was uttering words on the television, to a mass audience, that could only be interpreted, it seemed, as an inducement to seek high wages. But that was not an isolated statement. The right hon. Gentleman referred to his broadcast of 4th April. But he also broadcast on 2nd February when he appeared in "Panorama". In reply to Mr. Robin Day he said:
I want to make it absolutely plain that I am not against increasing wages or high wages. I have long proclaimed that in this country, wages compared with other western industrial countries are too low.

He cannot say that in February, 1970, and preach a different gospel in January, 1971. He cannot say that the cause of all our economic difficulties is the pursuit of high wages, when only a few months earlier he said that wages were too low. However, that was when there was a different Government—

Mr. John Page: rose—

Mr. Walker: Certainly, I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, and perhaps while he is on his feet he will tell me whether the remarks of his right hon. Friend were responsible or irresponsible.

Mr. Page: For once I am not answering for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. However, since I have been saying exactly the same thing for the last 20 years, that we are a low-wage country, I thought that I ought to defend my position. I believe the people in this country are paid lower wages than they could obtain, the reason being—and here the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) must surely agree with me—that wages are not increased equally with increased productivity, with the greater increase in wealth. All we have got to do is to make more money and all get bigger shares of it.

Mr. Walker: I will readily exclude the hon. Gentleman from any charge of inconsistency, but I qualify that remark with an expression of regret that his policy of productivity bargaining did not express itself from this side of the House when I had to stand at the Dispatch Box and be assailed by his right hon. Friend.
The right hon. Gentleman says today that if we look through the record we shall find that his attitude was always in favour of a need for an incomes policy. He did not say "prices, productivity and incomes", but, of course, he has dropped the "productivity". He is concerned only with employment now.
I thought, however, that it was nauseating hypocrisy on the right hon. Gentleman's part to say that, for I found it difficult to reconcile with my recollection of events when I stood at the Dispatch Box and he and his hon. Friends could not miss an opportunity of putting the boot into me when, month after month, I was defending our prices and incomes policy. I ask the right hon.


Gentleman: Is it really responsible of the Government—he may believe it is, but I do not believe his view will be shared by many other people outside the House—for them to abdicate responsibility for prices, for them to say "We have withdrawn from the field and are leaving it to market forces"?
It seems to me extraordinary that we should have a Government creating a climate that owes more to 19th century laissez faire capitalism than to the realities of the 20th century when people are able to stand on their own two feet, saying that aggressive individualism is the order of the day, that market forces will determine the prices, and then, having proclaimed that this is the theme of the Government, denying workers the right to say that they will be aggressive and individualistic and wish market forces to apply to the price of labour.
The right hon. Gentleman is quite right in linking this Bill with a prices and incomes policy. I believe that at least 50 per cent. of our strikes arise from the pursuit of wage and salary settlements. He cannot complain if, a climate having been created in which people are induced to pursue self-interest, strikes follow wage settlement disputes. The Government are creating a climate in which this becomes inevitable. I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman thinks, having regard to the Kindersley Report, that it was responsible behaviour for the doctors to refuse to sign medical certificates in order to bring pressure to bear for the full amount of the settlement. I happen to think it was, but we did not hear the words "responsibility" and "irresponsibility" from the right hon. Gentleman on that occasion.
I reflect on the words used by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), who castigated the word "responsible" in so far as it was introduced into the Bill. Indeed, I noted some of the words that he used"— "journalese", "vague", "ineffective". I thought it was astonishing that, having used the word and ground it down with his heel, he should then ask for its retention but only, with the logic for which he is famous, because he suggested that it was irrelevant anyhow. If it really

is irrelevant as he believes, as indeed he said the first four Clauses were irrelevant, I hope that he will join us in the Lobby to show how convinced he is of the word's irrelevance when we press the Amendment to a Division.
I said that the right hon. Gentleman had evaded trying to defend the word "responsibility" except in so far as it should be responsibility to a duly authorised body, but he stopped short of telling us who these authorities were. He also failed to tell us who were these non-unionists he wanted to create, to whom people shall be answerable for their actions under certain provisions of the Bill. We shall listen with interest when he tells us who are to be these authorities from whom people are to receive guidance.
The right hon. Gentleman also said that responsible action is that which has due regard to the interests of the community. I hope and believe that every individual and every group will at all times have regard to the interests of the community. But the present Government seem to have acquired a remarkable proneness for passing on to others the responsibility for determining what is and what is not in the community's interest. If this were left to individuals and sectional interests, there would be widely varying, often incompatible and sometimes downright contradictory interpretations of what is in the community's interests.
That is what we have seen in the debate today. We have had the anarchists, the Trotskyites, the Conservative Party and even the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, all with varying views and all believing that their views are in the interests of everybody in the community. I disagree with them all, but I do not question their sincerity. It is, however, astonishing that the present Government, above every other, in the light of their philosophy which they have declared, should draft into this Bill such a proposal to enable other bodies, which it seems to me are not competent, no matter how eminently they are constituted, to have the responsibility which it seems to me is properly that of the Government, of determining what is and what is not at any given time in the national interest. I say that they are passing the buck to other people.
I have only one other point to make, and that is, very briefly, on the other Amendment. I must say, as I have said already, that the right hon. Gentleman has failed to satisfy us in our intent to substitute other words for his word "responsibly"—not, as I have said, because we do not believe people should behave responsibly; of course we believe they should. However, we want the word defined, and in the absence of definition we do not think it at all wrong to adapt the right hon. Gentleman's own words in the debate on the Consultative Document, words which I shall quote, words which were quoted by my right hon. Friend when introducing the Amendment, words in which he said that he established as his fundamental principle that:
the only way of determining pay and conditions of work in a free society is by a voluntary system of negotiation, free from State control."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November, 1970; Vol. 807, c. 632.]
Our first Amendment epitomises and summarises the right hon. Gentleman's own belief, and it seems to me astonishing that he should have denigrated it in the way he did.
On the other Amendment, on which the right hon. Gentleman had astonishingly little to say, I would echo what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), that if, as is often said, I think rightly, there has been a shift of power within industry, what we must seek to do is to see that there is a corresponding shift of responsibility. I have heard right hon. and hon. Members opposite say that it is the case that there has been a shift of power within industry, and I think that it is probably true, but if that has been so, then it seems to me that the proper response is not to try to weight the scales in the other direction. I think a shift of power has occurred for certain historical and inevitable reasons, and trying to shift it back is a fruitless exercise, as fruitless as that of King Canute before the waves. As I say, if there has been a shift of power, what we must do is to shift responsibility, too. In many areas of industry there has been

a corresponding shift of responsibility, and it seems that if we want to keep responsibility constantly identified and allied with the exercise of power, then we should bring those who wield the power into the decision-making process of industry, to get them involved in taking decisions.

I must say to the right hon. Gentleman that I deplore the complete absence from his Bill of any recognition of the powerful trends which are taking place in this direction within industry. Nowhere in the whole of his Bill, nor in his Consultative Document, nor in any of the speeches which have been made by the Prime Minister himself—and all the other people—in his reportedly peripatetic lecture tours, is there a single word to say that the workers should have a say in the making of the decisions which so profoundly affect their lives—not a word about worker participation.

That is the signpost we put up here by this Amendment, a recognition that this is one way ahead, to involve the workers in the decision-making process, and by these words we introduce an element of democracy in industry, to have power exercised more responsibly.

I have said that the explanations which have been given from the Front Bench opposite have been inadequate and weak. Certainly they do not satisfy my right hon. Friend and me, and, unless the right hon. Gentleman can give us any further clarification which will satisfy us, I must advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the Amendment in the Lobby. We would, of course, seek to have an answer from the right hon. Gentleman, but unless he gives us an indication of his willingness to accept either of these Amendments we shall seek a Division on both of them.

8.15 p.m.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 262, Noes 295.

Division No. 54.]
AYES
[8.16 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Ashton, Joe
Beaney, Alan


Albu, Austen
Atkinson, Norman
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bidwell, Sydney


Allen, Scholefield
Barnes, Michael
Bishop, E. S.


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Barnett, Joel
Blenkinsop, Arthur


Ashley, Jack
Baxter, William
Boardman, H. (Leigh)




Booth, Albert
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Oram, Bert


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Orbach, Maurice


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Orme, Stanley


Bradley, Tom
Heffer, Eric S.
Oswald, Thomas


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hilton, W. S.
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Horam, John
Padley, Walter


Buchan, Norman
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Paget, R. T.


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Palmer, Arthur


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdean, N.)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Pavitt, Laurie


Carmichael, Neil
Hunter, Adam
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm Northfield)
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Pendry, Tom


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Janner, Greville
Pentland, Norman


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Perry, Ernest G.


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St. P'cras, S.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Prescott, John


Cohen, Stanley
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Coleman, Donald
John, Brynmor
Price, William (Rugby)


Concannon, J. D.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Probert, Arthur


Conlan, Bernard
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Rankin, John


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Johnson Walter (Derby, S.)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Johes, Barry (Flint, E.)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Cronin, John
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Richard, Ivor


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)
Judd, Frank
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Kaufman, Gerald
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Dalyell, Tam
Kelley, Richard
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Kerr, Russell
Roper, John


Davidson, Arthur
Kinnock, Neil
Rose, Paul B.


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Lambie, David
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lamond, James
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Latham, Arthur
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Lawson, George
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Deakins, Eric
Leadbitter, Ted
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Delargy, H. J.
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Leonard, Dick
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Doig, Peter
Lestor, Miss Joan
Sillars, James


Dormand, J. D.
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Silverman, Julius


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Skinner, Dennis


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Small, William


Driberg, Tom
Lipton, Marcus
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lomas, Kenneth
Spearing, Nigel


Dunn, James A.
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Spriggs, Leslie


Eadie, Alex
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Stallard, A. W.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mabon, Dr. J. (Dickson)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McBride, Neil
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Ellis, Tom
McCann, John
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


English, Michael
McCartney, Hugh
Strang, Gavin


Evans, Fred
McElhone, Frank
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Faulds, Andrew
McGuire, Michael
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Fernyhough, E.
Mackie, John
Swain, Thomas


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Mackintosh, John P.
Taverne, Dick


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Maclennan, Robert
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Foley, Maurice
MacPherson, Malcolm
Tinn, James


Foot, Michael
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Tomney, Frank


Ford, Ben
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Urwin, T. W.


Forrester, John
Marquand, David
Varley, Eric G.


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Wainwright, Edwin


Freeson, Reginald
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Meacher, Michael
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Garrett, W. E.
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Wallace, George


Gilbert, Dr. John
Mendelson, John
Watkins, David


Ginsburg, David
Mikardo, Ian
Weitzman, David


Golding, John
Millan, Bruce
Wellbeloved, James


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Gourlay, Harry
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
White, James Glasgow, (Pollok)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Molloy, William
Whitehead, Philip


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Whitlock, William


Griffiths, Eddie (Bridgeside)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Williams, Mrs. Shirely (Hitchin)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Moyle, Roland
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Hamling, William
Murray, Ronald King
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Ogden, Eric



Hardy, Peter
O'Halloran, Michael
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Harper, Joseph
O'Malley, Brian
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and




Mr. Kenneth Marks.







NOES


Adley, Robert
Fortescue, Tim
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Foster, Sir John
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Fowler, Norman
Maddan, Martin


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Fox, Marcus
Madel, David


Astor, John
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'ford &amp; Stone)
Maginnis, John E.


Atkins, Humphrey
Fry, Peter
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Marten, Neil


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Gardner, Edward
Mather, Carol


Balniel, Lord
Gibson-Watt, David
Maude, Angus


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mawby, Ray


Batsford, Brian
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Bell, Ronald
Goodhart, Philip
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Goodhew, Victor
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Benyon, W.
Gorst, John
Miscampbell, Norman


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Gower, Raymond
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)


Biffen, John
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Biggs-Davison, John
Gray, Hamish
Moate, Roger


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Green, Alan
Molyneux, James


Body, Richard
Grieve, Percy
Money, Ernie


Boscawen, Robert
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Bossom, Sir Clive
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Monro, Hector


Bowden, Andrew
Grylls, Michael
Montgomery, Fergus


Braine, Bernard
Gummer, Selwyn
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Bray, Ronald
Gurden, Harold
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Brewis, John
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mudd, David


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Neave, Airey


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Bryan, Paul

Normanton, Tom


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Nott, John


Buck, Antony
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Onslow, Cranley


Bullus, Sir Eric
Haselhurst, Alan
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Burden, F. A.
Havers, Michael
Orr, Capt, L. P. S.


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hayhoe, Barney
Osborn, John


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray&amp;Nairn)
Heseltine, Michael
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Carlisle, Mark
Hicks, Robert
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Higgins, Terence L.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Cary, Sir Robert
Hiley, Joseph
Pardoe, John


Channon, Paul
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


Chapman, Sydney
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Peel, John


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Holland, Philip
Percival, Ian


Chichester-Clark, R.
Holt, Miss Mary
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Churchill, W. S.
Hooson, Emlyn
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hordern, Peter
Pink, R. Bonner


Clegg, Walter
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Pounder, Rafton


Cockeram, Eric
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Cooke, Robert
Howell, David (Guildford)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Coombs, Derek
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Cooper, A. E.
Hunt, John
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Cordie, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Cormack, Patrick
James, David
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Costain, A. P.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Raison, Timothy


Critchley, Julian
Jessel, Toby
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Crowder, F. P.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Curran, Charles
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Redmond, Robert


Dalkeith, Earl of
Jopling, Michael
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rees, Peter (Dover)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Rees-Davies, W. R.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Kershaw, Anthony
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Dean Paul
Kimball, Marcus
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Digby, Simon Wingfield
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Ridsdale, Julian


Dixon, Piers
Kinsey, J. R.
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Kirk, Peter
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Drayson, G. B.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Knox, David
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Dykes, Hugh
Lane, David
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Eden, Sir John
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rost, Peter


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Royle, Anthony


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Le Marchant, Spencer
Russell, Sir Ronald


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Emery, Peter
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Eyre, Reginald
Longden, Gilbert
Scott, Nicholas


Farr, John
Loveridge, John
Scott-Hopkins, James


Fell, Anthony
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Sharples, Richard


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
MacArthur, Ian
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Fidler, Michael
McCrindle, R. A.
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
McLaren, Martin
Simeons, Charles


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Sinclair, Sir George


Fookes, Miss Janet
McMaster, Stanley
Skeet, T. H. H.







Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Tebbit, Norman
Ward, Dame Irene


Soref, Harold
Temple, John M.
Warren, Kenneth


Speed, Keith
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Weatherill, Bernard


Spence, John
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Sproat, Iain
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Stainton, Keith
Tilney, John
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Stanbrook, Ivor
Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Wiggin, Jerry


Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)
Trew, Peter
Wilkinson, John


Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Tugendhat, Christopher
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Stokes, John
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Woodnutt, Mark


Sutcliffe, John
Vickers, Dame Joan
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Tapsell, Peter
Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Younger, Hn. George


Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)



Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Wall, Patrick
Mr. Jasper More and


Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)
Walters, Dennis
Mr. Paul Hawkins.

Amendment proposed: No. 345, in page 1, line 10, after 'freely', insert 'democratically',—[Mrs. Castle.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 267, Noes 293.

Division No. 55.]
AYES
[8.28 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Deakins, Eric
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Albu, Austen
Delargy, H. J.
Hunter, Adam


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)


Allen, Scholefield
Doig, Peter
Janner, Greville


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Dormand, J. D.
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Armstrong, Ernest
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St. P'cras, S.)


Ashley, Jack
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Ashton, Joe
Driberg, Tom
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Atkinson, Norman
Duffy, A. E. P.
John, Brynmor


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dunn, James A.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Barnes, Michael
Eadie, Alex
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Barnett, Joel
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)


Baxter, William
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Beaney, Alan
Ellis, Tom
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
English, Michael
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Bidwell, Sydney
Evans, Fred
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Bishop, E. S.
Faulds, Andrew
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Fernyhough, E.
Judd, Frank


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Kaufman, Gerald


Booth, Albert
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Kelley, Richard


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Kerr, Russell


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Kinnock, Neil


Bradley, Tom
Foley, Maurice
Lambie, David


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Foot, Michael
Lamond, James


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Ford, Ben
Latham, Arthur


Buchan, Norman
Forrester, John
Lawson, George


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Leadbitter, Ted


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Freeson, Reginald
Leonard, Dick


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Galpern, Sir Myer
Lestor, Miss Joan


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Garrett, W. E.
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold


Cant, R. B.
Gilbert, Dr. John
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Carmichael, Neil
Ginsburg, David
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Lipton, Marcus


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Gourlay, Harry
Lomas, Kenneth


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Cohen, Stanley
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
McBride, Neil


Coleman, Donald
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
McCann, John


Concannon, J. D.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McCartney, Hugh


Conlan, Bernard
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
McElhone, Frank


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
McGuire, Michael


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Hardy, Peter
Mackenzie, Gregor


Crawshaw, Richard
Harper, Joseph
Mackie, John


Cronin, John
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mackintosh, John P.


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Maclennan, Robert


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)
Heffer, Eric S.
McNamara, J. Kevin


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Hilton, W. S.
MacPherson, Malcolm


Dalyell, Tam
Hosson, Emlyn
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Horam, John
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Davidson, Arthur
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Dougles
Marks, Kenneth


Davies, Denzil (Llanelfy)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Marquand, David


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Mayhew, Christopher




Meacher, Michael
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Prescott, John
Strang, Gavin


Mendelson, John
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Mikardo, Ian
Price, William (Rugby)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Millan, Bruce
Probert, Arthur
Swain, Thomas


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Rankin, John
Taverne, Dick


Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Molloy, William
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Thompson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Richard, Ivor
Tinn, James


Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Tomney, Frank


Moyle, Roland
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Torney, Tom


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Urwin, T. W.


Murray, Ronald King
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)
Varley, Eric G.


Ogden, Eric
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Wainwright, Edwin


O'Halloran, Michael
Roper, John
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


O'Malley, Brian
Rose, Paul B.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster


Oram, Bert
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Wallace, George


Orbach, Maurice
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Walkins, David


Orme, Stanley
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Weitzman, David


Oswald, Thomas
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Wellbeloved, James


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Padley, Walter
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Paget, R. T.
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Whitehead, Phillip


Palmer, Arthur
Sillars, James
Whitlock, William


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Silverman, Julius
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Pardoe, John
Skinner, Dennis
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Small, William
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Pavitt, Laurie
Spearing, Nigel
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Spriggs, Leslie



Pendry, Tom
Stallard, A. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Pentland, Norman
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Mr John Golding and


Perry, Ernest G.
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Mr. William Hamling.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Clegg, Walter
Glyn, Dr. Alan


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Cockeram, Eric
Goodhart, Philip


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Cooke, Robert
Goodhew, Victor


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Coombs, Derek
Gorst, John


Astor, John
Cooper, A. E.
Gower, Raymond


Atkins, Humphrey
Cordle, John
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Cormack, Patrick
Gray, Hamish


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Costain, A. P.
Green, Alan


Balniel, Lord
Crilchley, Julian
Grieve, Percy


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Crowder, F. P.
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Batsford, Brian
Curran, Charles
Grylls, Michael


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Dalkeith, Earl of
Gummer, Selwyn


Bell, Ronald
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Gurden, Harold


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)


Benyon, W.
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Dean, Paul
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Biffen, John
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Biggs-Davison, John
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Dixon, Piers
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Body, Richard
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Boscawen, R. T.
Drayson, G. B.
Haselhurst, Alan


Bossom, Sir Clive
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Havers, Michael


Bowden, Andrew
Dykes, Hugh
Hayhoe, Barney


Braine, Bernard
Eden, Sir John
Heseltine, Michael


Bray, Ronald
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hicks, Robert


Brewis, John
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Higgins, Terence L.


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Hiley, Joseph


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Emery, Peter
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Eyre, Reginald
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Farr, John
Holland, Philip


Bryan, Paul
Fell, Anthony
Holt, Miss Mary


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Hordern, Peter


Buck, Antony
Fidler, Michael
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia


Bullus, Sir Eric
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)


Burden, F. A.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Howell, David (Guildford)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)



Fortescue, Tim
Hunt, John


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray&amp;Nairn)
Foster, Sir John
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Carlisle, Mark
Fowler, Norman
James, David


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Fox, Marcus
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Cary, Sir Robert
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Jessel, Toby


Channon, Paul
Fry, Peter
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Chapman, Sydney
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Gardner, Edward
Jopling, Michael


Chichester-Clark, R.
Gibson-Watt, David
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Churchill, W. S.
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine







Kershaw, Anthony
Normanton, Tom
Speed, Keith


Kimball, Marcus
Nott, John
Spence, John


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Onslow, Cranley
Sproat, Iain


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Stainton, Keith


Kinsey, J. R.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Stanbrook, Ivor


Kirk, Peter
Osborn, John
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Knox, David
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Lane, David
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Stokes, John


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Peel, John
Sutcliffe, John


Le Marchant, Spencer
Percival, Ian
Tapsell, Peter


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Lloyd, Ian (P'ts'mth, Langstone)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Longden, Gilbert
Pink, R. Bonner
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Loveridge, John
Pounder, Rafton
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Tebbit, Norman


MacArthur, Ian
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Temple, John M.


McCrindle, R. A.
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


McLaren, Martin
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


McMaster, Stanley
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Tilney, John


Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Raison, Timothy
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

Trew, Peter


Maddan, Martin
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Tugendhat, Christopher


Madel, David
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Maginnis, John E.
Redmond, Robert
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Marten, Neil
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Mather, Carol
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Maude, Angus
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Mawby, Ray
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Wall, Patrick


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Ridsdale, Julian
Walters, Dennis


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Ward, Dame Irene


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Warren, Kenneth


Miscampbell, Norman
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Weatherill, Bernard


Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)



Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Rost, Peter
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Moate, Roger
Royle, Anthony
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Molyneaux, James
Russell, Sir Ronald
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Money, Ernie
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Wiggin, Jerry


Monks, Mrs. Connie
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Wilkinson, John


Monro, Hector
Scott, Nicholas
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Montgomery, Fergus
Scott-Hopkins, James
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


More, Jasper
Sharples, Richard
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Woodnutt, Mark


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Simeons, Charles
Younger, Hn. George


Mudd, David
Sinclair, Sir George



Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Skeet, T. H. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Neave, Airey
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Mr. Paul Hawkins and


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Soref, Harold
Mr. Hugh Rossi.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): The next Amendment selected is Amendment No. 7.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Am I right, Mr. Mallalieu, in thinking that you referred to Amendment No. 7?

The Temporary Chairman: Yes. I called Amendment No. 7.

Mr. Lewis: I wanted to check that with you, Mr. Mallalieu, because I have heard various whispers and comments going on backwards and forwards, and in view of the fact that I have put down a few other Amendments which for some strange reason have not been called, I thought I might have heard you wrongly and that you were calling an earlier Amendment.
I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 1, line 11, after 'conducted', insert:

'discussion and settlement within factories and industries of the prices, profits and dividends, as made and paid within such establishments, on the goods and services provided by the workers for the benefit of the general public, their employers, and their shareholders'.
I happened to hear our Chief Whip say to some of my hon. Friends that he did not want anyone to take part in the discussion of my Amendment. That does not worry me, because the subject was discussed on the previous Amendment. I am not criticising the Chair, but my own view is that that discussion was not as relevant to the previous Amendments as it will be to this one, since it concerns prices, profits and dividends.
One of the main reasons for industrial unrest, as we all know, is that workers, through their trade unions, make applications for wage increases to which they


feel entitled either because of the increase in the cost of living and/or because of the rise in their own productivity and/or because of the profits that their organisation or firm is making. Therefore, when they discuss these applications, one relevant factor is whether there is sufficient money in the kitty to meet these extra demands.
We should have a reference to prices included in the Bill, because the Government seem to be very anxious to control and, as they say, improve industrial relations by focusing all the reasons for industrial unrest upon the alleged malpractices, irresponsibility or lack of appreciation of the national well-being on the part of trade unions and workers in industry.
I had thought that some of my hon. Friends might have taken part in the debate, but I heard our Chief Whip advising them not to take part in the unofficial Amendments and to stick to the official ones. I am surprised, because I thought that the question of prices was right up the street of official Amendments which ought to have been on the Notice Paper.
If workers find, as they invariably do, that they cannot obtain an increase in salary through Government pressure on their employers not to give, say, over 10 per cent. when their own company's directors are getting, perhaps, 20 or 30 per cent., some industrial unrest in the factory or establishment is bound to result. I should have thought that that would have been relevant and important to the Bill.
If, as invariably is the case, a worker finds that he is producing a certain commodity or commodities, he can work out that the cost of those commodities, with his labour power and the cost of materials and overheads, reaches X pounds. But when he tries to buy the article in a shop he finds that the cost is double and treble what it would and should have been had the article been bath wholesaled and retailed as a reasonable price. Workers are entitled to think that it is a bit strange that they cannot ask for a few extra shillings a week to buy the goods which they have produced or to have the services they want to use. They are asking for 10 or 15 per cent., and yet the people who are trying to control them are having 20 or 30 per cent. In the latter case it is not inflationary, but in their

case it is. They find this rather difficult to understand.
Although I hate to pick on individuals or name names, equally we find that people who enjoy what might be called Government sponsorship get not 20 per cent. but as much as 66·2 per cent. by way of increases in salary in 2½ years. However, when the workers in their industries say that they want a few shillings more the Government tell them that it is against the national interest.
We see two very topical examples in the supply industries. The electricity power workers asked for what they regarded as a reasonable increase in return for the improvement in productivity and the rationalisation achieved in their industry. They find that they cannot get it. The Government will not allow them to have it. At the same time the chairman of the industry who is instructed by the Government not to grant more than a 10 per cent. increase himself gets 66·2 per cent. The workers see their chairman's salary going up to £20,000 a year as a result of the second increase in 12 months, when their own case has to go to an independent tribunal headed by a Conservative Party candidate at the last election who himself gets something like £13,000 a year and who very generously does not intend to claim the 18 guineas per day allowance to which he is entitled. That is what people who serve on arbitration tribunals receive—[Interruption.] Apparently the Minister does not agree, but that is what I was told last week in answer to a Question. The chairman of such a tribunal is entitled to 18 guineas a day, with a mere eight guineas a day going to the poor members.
The case of the Post Office workers is even more topical. Because of their very low earnings, we are told that they have to do many hours overtime to bring their average earnings to a reasonable figure. Now they are told that they cannot have what they regard as a reasonable increase and that the case should go to arbitration. They must think it a strange state of affairs when they consider that the chairman of any arbitration tribunal which may be set up will receive 18 guineas a day, with eight guineas a day going to the members of the tribunal.
These matters are relative, as are the profits that the industry is making. It must be strange to a worker to be told


that he cannot have a few shillings extra when his employers can have large increases in fees, salaries and dividends and when, in addition, some get houses, flats, yachts, and all sorts of other extras laid on at company expense.
All these matters have a bearing upon the end product. Let us take the case of a company director. Let us assume that he is a director of Guest, Keen and Nettlefolds and that he receives £20,000 a year. Let us suppose that he serves on a Government tribunal and receives another eight guineas a day. Let us suppose, in addition, that he has a house, a town flat, the use of a yacht, and so on, all laid on by his company. All these extras must eventually be added to the end product cost. Of course, the cost of that article must obviously pro rata go up.
If there are hundreds of thousands—indeed, millions—of pounds being used nationally in this way, some workers may say, "If some of these people were to apply a bit of wage restraint, a bit of restriction, the cost of the articles which we are producing and placing on the market and having to pay so much for could be reduced in price." What a wonderful thing, because this would give the Prime Minister the opportunity, which he expressed during the election, of cutting prices "at a stroke". The cost of the articles would be reduced, prices would come down, and, instead of an annual 10 per cent. increase in the cost of living, which this Government have achieved in the last six months, who knows, perhaps we may achieve a 10 per cent. reduction in the cost of living. If that situation came about I am sure that it would help to improve industrial relations. It would benefit the general public, the employers, and the shareholders in companies.
When I heard some of the comments expressed in the last debate, I thought that that was not really the time to put forward the very good ideas, all of which came from this side—I did not hear much of note from the other side—because they could more adequately be discussed and put more forcibly on this, albeit unofficial, Amendment. This is one of several—I put it no higher—Amendments which I have put down. Some I put down months before the Official Opposition Amendments, some of which, strangely

enough, are tagged on to mine, and I thought that the Official Opposition would have tagged on to this Amendment.
Nevertheless, I could not understand it when I overhead my Chief Whip—everybody knows that I am not afraid to say what I think—say that he did not want a lot of discussion on this Amendment; he wanted to get on to the official Amendments. My right hon. Friend may want to do that, but I am sure that my constituents, and other hon. Members constituents, would like to see prices reduced. People generally would feel that reducing prices is the best way of tackling the so-called cost inflation due to workers asking for too much in wages.
Surely the better way of preventing industrial unrest is to do away with the cause. The cause, as I see from reading my newspaper on any day of the week, is that this and that article have gone up. As this and that article have gone up by 25, 50 or 100 per cent., I then look through the paper to see whether the Government have suggested that those prices are unreasonable as they are above their 10 per cent. norm, but I never find any such reference. I then come to the House, and I think that the Government will make a statement saying that they are to take action to prevent, for instance, petrol companies putting up the price of petrol—which they have done three times during the last six months—but I soon discover that the Government have no intention of doing that.
That being the state of affairs, I tell myself that I must help the Government—I am always helpful to all Governments—and I put down an Amendment to give the Prime Minister a chance to implement the promise, which I am sure was made to the electorate in all good faith, that he would take action to reduce prices at a stroke. I thought that if I tabled an Amendment such as this one it would give him a wonderful opportunity to do what he promised to do, because by this means he would be able to reduce prices in all the services and establishments where work is carried on.
One criticism might be that I have not included a provision to control legal fees. I dealt with that in another Amendment, but that has not been called. Lawyers have voluntary agreements. They are able, without any statutory legislation, to demand whatever fees they like. Recently


I read of a case in which, after a few days in court, the costs were alleged to be £80,000. I thought that that might be a little inflationary, but there was not a murmur from the legal gentlemen about that.

Mr. Nicholas Scott: The hon. Gentleman said that the subject which he is now discussing is not within the terms of his Amendment. He drew attention to the fact that he had not included it. Is he in order in pursuing this line of debate?

The Deputy Chairman: The Chair will decide when the hon. Gentleman is not in order, but I think he is well aware that he is trespassing somewhat on the time of the Committee, even in view of his Amendment.

Mr. Lewis: One argument which might be adduced for not accepting the Amendment is that it does, not go far enough. Hon. Gentlemen opposite may say that I ought to have included the fees of lawyers and legal costs, and that I ought—

The Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman has not included those things in his Amendment.

Mr. Lewis: I agree, Miss Harvie Anderson. I would have included them had I thought that the Amendment would be called, but as that is not within my power I am sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite will excuse me for not having included them.
Nevertheless, the Amendment before the Committee could cover this point, because it refers to "services". I am not a legal gentleman, but there are present some members of the legal profession and they perhaps can advise me, as I am sure the Chair can, whether "services" might include legal services. Lawyers give services. They offer a service. They make charges—very heavy ones—for those services. They are not controlled in any way. They are not restricted in any way. I think that I had better put on my glasses to enable me to read the Amendment more carefully.

The Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman may need his glasses to read the Amendment, but the occupant of the Chair has used hers, and I advise the hon. Gentleman to return to the Amendment on the Notice Paper.

Mr. Lewis: I am sorry, Miss Harvie Anderson, but perhaps you would tell me what is meant by services. I believe that the Post Office gives a service, though it may not do so during the next few days. Thus, as the Amendment mentions services, surely it is in order to discuss this matter? Equally, lawyers offer a service and can and ought to be included
I agree that if I were to argue on my Amendment referring to the 6½ guineas paid tax free to members of another place for mere casual attendance I would be out of order. In any case, they do not give a service—

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Scott: I have two points of order. First, the services referred to in the Amendment are services
 … provided by the workers for the benefit of … their employees and their shareholders
That reference certainly does not apply to members of the legal profession.
Secondly, Mr. Deputy Chairman, with the greatest possible respect, may I draw to the attention of the Chair the fact that the Amendment when linked to the terms of the Bill does not make grammatical or any other sense.

The Deputy Chairman: I do not think that the hon. Member would expect the Chair to accept such comments.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Further to that point of order. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the services given by lawyers are not for the benefit of the general public? If they are for the benefit of the general public they could be included in the Amendment; but if not—and I concede that it is arguable that they are not—they would be excluded.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. I do not think that it will serve the Committee well if points of order are raised which are not points of order. There are very serious matters to discuss, and I hope that the Committee will wish to discuss such matters.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: You have said, Miss Harvie Anderson, that the way in which the Amendment would fit into the Clause is of no consequence to the Chair. I understand that the Chair selects the


Amendments. My point is that perhaps the Chair, though throwing out hundreds of the Amendments tabled by the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), may still have made another error. It may be that this Amendment is not in order, since it is clear from what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott) that if the Amendment were accepted the Clause would not make sense.

The Deputy Chairman: It is certainly not in order for the hon. Member to reflect on the Chair in any way, as he must by now know very well indeed. I have also made it quite clear that the purpose of the Committee will not be best served by continuing with bogus points of order. Mr. Arthur Lewis.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I withdraw any reflection on the Chair. I simply wanted to point out—

The Deputy Chairman: Order. So far as the Chair has heard, the hon. Member has not raised a point of order. Mr. Arthur Lewis.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I know that hon. Members who are not lawyers sometimes put down Amendments for the specific purpose of drawing attention to the points they have in mind. If the great Government legal luminaries think that an Amendment is good they will accept it in principle, saying that whilst the wording may not be quite as accurate or detailed as they would like they will later put it into good legal phraseology. If that were done in this case the higher fees of these lawyers would be earned in a good cause and, who knows, my Amendment might be accepted. The legal gentlemen might themselves want voluntarily to reword my Amendment so that the word "services" could cover the services of legal gentlemen.

Mr. Harold Walker: According to the definition Clause, lawyers are not workers.

Mr. Lewis: My hon. Friend makes a valid point, but he will agree that the Bill has not yet been passed, and perhaps by the time many of my Amendments which are yet to be called are reached we shall find that lawyers are deemed

to be workers. We shall find perhaps that they will be included in the scope of the Bill. I want them to be included I want everyone who gives a service to be included. I disagree with my hon Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins). I believe lawyers give a service and should be included. Indeed, they have had much to do with drafting the Bill and I am sure that they would want to get its benefits.
I am told by the Government that this is a very good Bill and very good for the workers. Therefore, I cannot see why certain people should be excluded. I am a good trade unionist; I am a member of three trade unions. I would like to see all those who give services—I do not want to harp on lawyers, who have a trade union as well—and provide goods and, indeed, help to build the wealth of the country given the opportunity of discussing all matters within their day-to-day activities.
As the position now is, a worker feels that he is justified in asking for an increase and that he is entitled to more than 10 per cent. He may be a Post Office worker giving a service, an electrical worker giving a service, or a local government worker clearing household refuse, which is a very important service The Government are trying to enforce their view upon the general wage rates of the lower paid workers, however. That worker may feel that he should have the opportunity of discussing all these things which, to him and to all trade unions, are relative both to his wages and his working conditions. But, no! At the moment the employer can and invariably does say, "That is a managerial function. You cannot discuss questions which are outside the prerogative of the trade unions because they are a managerial responsibility."
I do not think that this is right because, even at this moment, arguments are going on as to whether or not in one of these services there is sufficient money available for the workers in that service to get what they feel is a justified wage increase. That can apply to a number of workers in services who are, in the main, on the lower paid scale. It may be said that the Post Office workers are not too badly paid; that is a matter of opinion. If a worker is earning £20 or £23, or £24


or even £27 a week—that is the average—he may feel that it is not so good when he knows that the chairman of his concern is getting, say, £20,000 a year. He may want to query that. He may want to say, "Our service need not go up in price if I have a say in restricting the 66·2 per cent. increase which my chairman is getting." At the moment he does not have that right. He is told, "That is not for you to discuss."

Mr. Gower: What about the hon. Gentleman's salary?

Mr. Lewis: I am talking about both sides. If the hon. Gentleman wants to take this further, I am happy to do so. A Post Office worker may say, "I cannot get more than 10 per cent. on my £24 a week but my former chairman, dismissed because allegedly he was not up to the job, is to get a £30,000 golden handshake." He may feel that it should be discussed whether or not there should be a golden handshake of £30,000. He might say that if there were not such golden handshakes there would be more money in the kitty for the lower-paid.
I have chosen the State services, because the Tories are always getting at them. I have had a go at private industry and company directors. As I am always fair, I must say the same about chairmen and members of the boards of nationalised industries and question whether they are entitled to receive increases of the order which Governments of both parties seem happy to give them without any worry.
It was no answer for a Government to say, "We are doing it because you did it". If it is wrong, it is wrong, no matter who does it. It is true that the Labour Government gave large increases to higher-paid civil servants, and I attacked them for it. The vital difference, however, is that they did not at that time say that they would not give the very low-paid dustmen an increase whilst at the same time granting a 66⅔ per cent. increase to people on £15,000 to £20,000 a year.

Mr. Gower: The ability of industries to give certain increases today should be contrasted with the period under the Labour Government when they were not allowed to give any increases.

Mr. Lewis: That is not true, but for the sake of argument I will accept that it is true and they did not give any increase. If, as is true, the cost of living increased, and if workers did not get any wage increases, what pushed up the cost of living? The hon. Gentleman has just said that the workers were not allowed to have increases. I agree that prices should not have risen to the extent that they did. The same is happening now. The price of almost everything is rising.
Every effort is being made in the Bill to restrict, control and hamstring trade unions because, it is alleged, they are responsible for rising prices, yet there is not one word of condemnation even, let alone any action, on the Government's part about the rising prices of articles and services. During the recent power dispute we learned that candles were in great demand and almost overnight their price doubled and trebled an in some instances increase by ten times. The Government did not want to take any action to prevent it. Indeed, they would not even accept Questions on the matter and would not allow us the opportunity to discuss whether a candle which cost one shilling one day should cost two shillings the next day.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: Fifteen shillings.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Lewis: My hon. Friend lives in the wrong part of the country. He should live in London where the price only doubled.
If hon. Members wish to be honest with themselves, as I am sure they do, and if the Government are anxious to reduce prices, they should recognise that this is a marvellous opportunity, because if these words were in the Bill it would be possible for the workers at the factory of Messrs. Price, the candle manufacturers, to have a discussion and say, "We do not think that the price of these candles should have risen by 1,500 or 2,000 per cent." [Interruption.]
If competition is to be the rule for prices, why cannot it be the rule for workers to obtain higher wages? After all, their labour is the only thing they have to sell. If prices can go up by up to 2,000 per cent., why must wages be held down by law to very low figures?


The philosophy of hon. Gentlemen opposite is to allow manufacturers to get away with as much as they can. Competition will control prices, they say, but workers must not be free to compete for the highest wages they can get.
The Government say that there can be a 20 per cent. increase in fares, resulting in the cost of living rising dramatically, without doing anything to condemn or control it. If, on the other hand, a worker asks for more than 10 per cent., they set up an independent tribunal with an ex-Conservative candidate as chairman—[Interruption.]—a man who has given large sums to Conservative Party funds, and an investigation is held to see whether a 10 per cent. rise is adequate.
Surprisingly perhaps, my Amendment has been selected. If the Government accept the principle of my proposal but are not in favour of its drafting, I will willingly withdraw it on their undertaking to introduce a satisfactory form of words at a later date. Its acceptance would mean a reduction in prices through better industrial relations. This is vital because the cost of living has been rising more rapidly in the last six months than it did at any time in the previous six years.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move Amendment No. 348, in page 1, line 12, after 'orderly', insert 'voluntarily agreed'.

The Deputy Chairman: It will be convenient to take at the same time Amendment No. 363, in page 1, line 14, after 'negotiation', insert: without recourse to legal proceedings'.

Mr. Walker: The Amendment logically follows the Amendment moved earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). We seek to bring consistency into the wording and, presumably, therefore, into the spirit of the first two principles of the Clause.
If the Secretary of State believes—and if he does we share his belief—that collective bargaining should be freely conducted, as is expressed in the first principle, it seems to us that the machinery of that collective bargaining, the procedures by which it shall be conducted, should be determined with equal freedom. There is little freedom in collective bargaining when it must be conducted

within the limitations of a procedure which is not freely and mutually agreed but is imposed by one side or the other—a procedure which is often inequitable, protracted and ineffective as a consequence of not being the subject of free mutual agreement.
I need not dwell on the well known, if not infamous, procedure for the avoidance of disputes in the engineering industry. The Secretary of State referred to the Labour Government's White Paper "In Place of Strife". We singled out this procedure as an example of what we thought was a bad procedure which needed reforming. The irony is that, in spite of its inequitable and ineffective character, it would still be reconcilable with the requirements of the Clause as drafted except that one might have serious reservations about its compatibility with the interests of the community. There are very few, if any, engineering trade unionists, and not all employers, who would accept that it permits free collective bargaining or that its provisions are conducive to good industrial relations. That was a procedure which was not mutually agreed but to which the unions were compelled to acquiesce after a lengthy lock-out.
I say no more about that example of the folly of failing to seek and secure mutual agreement about the machinery of collective bargaining in one of our biggest industries. The Secretary of State is aware that strenuous and formidable efforts, long overdue, are being made to rectify this blunder of the past which has cost the industry, the workers in it and the country dearly for over 50 years. But we should learn from it. The lesson we should learn is the need to provide for free mutual agreement, and we should write that lesson into the legislation. The lesson is that unless the methods and techniques by which employers and work-people conduct their complex relationships are mutually agreed, no matter what short-term advantage they might bring to one side they are doomed to failure in the long term.
If we are to engage, as we are being asked to engage, in the exercise of creating statutory principles in industrial relations, that lesson should be given expression in the Bill. If there is one principle which would obtain almost universal agreement among people experienced


in industrial relations it is that what men cannot be persuaded to do voluntarily, of their own free will, they will rarely do well or efficiently under compulsion or coercion. That applies equally to the creation of the procedural machinery as it does to the exercise, the practice, of that procedural machinery.
Perhaps I shall be permitted to refer to an example in my constituency which highlights the point which I seek to make. It is purely coincidental that it has a relationship with the division which I represent, but it is a matter of national interest. Among the many useful tasks which it has done, the Commission on Industrial Relations has probably found its best exercise of function in the agreement which it produced for the International Harvester Company, which is based in my constituency and at Bradford. My right hon. Friend made this particular reference, and the Commission subsequently reported. One might say that within its particular remit it had exhausted its rule by reporting on the defects that it found in the procedures in the case of that plant. In fact, under the wise direction of Commissioner Paynter, the Commission went on to persuade unions and management to respond positively to all its recommendations and brought into existence what I think is probably the best example of a fully comprehensive plant procedural agreement that I know.
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that after doing what I think was an absolutely splendid job of work, Commissioner Paynter, because he had to conduct his work in the atmosphere that was engendered by the publication of his consultative document, decided that rather than continue and perhaps be subjected to restraints that the Bill would impose on the Commission, he ought to resign. All the trade unions, at local and national level, who became signatories, with management, to this far-reaching and comprehensive agreement became alarmed that because of the Bill this agreement might cease to be legally enforceable. In the light of the right hon. Gentleman's admiration of the legalistic system of the United States and his confession that he has sought to follow it in his own legislative proposals—

Mr. R. Carr: indicated dissent.

Mr. Walker: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but in "Fair Deal at Work" admiration is expressed for the Taft-Hartley provisions.
The American managing director, on being consulted by the unions, replied as follows in a letter:
We have reached the point where we have a voluntary agreement on constitutions for a Central Joint Negotiating Committee and Plant Joint Negotiating Committees together with Domestic Disputes Procedures. Management therefore agrees with the unions that it would be against the spirit and intent of these procedures for them to be made the subject of legal or statutory enforcement. If such were ever necessary, then we would together have failed to achieve the development of effective industrial relations so necessary to the success of the company and the well-being of its employees. It is in this spirit that management pledges its determination to make a success of this agreement and is confident that all union officials and shop stewards will work, with their members, to ensure the effective implementation of these mutually beneficial constitutions and procedures.
To that, I and the unions say "Hear, hear". It illustrates the point that I am making. If an agreement cannot be voluntarily agreed, there is no point in making it anyhow. People do not respond to impositions. We do not get the best out of people in those circumstances.
With regard to the situation that I have briefly described, the unions made a public statement not only saying how warmly they welcomed the agreement that had been entered into, but expressing their determination to make it work.
In the light of the severe strictures which have recently been cast on my constituency, in industrial relations terms, may I say that I have no doubt that in our debates we shall hear the name of Lord Robens referred to time and time again. I live in my constituency. At weekends I work among the trade unions in my constituency, and I think that the spirit that went into that agreement to which reference is made in the letter from which I have just quoted is the universal spirit that prevails in my constituency.
In the harsh, hard days of "In Place of Strife" and the prices and incomes policy, for which I had some responsibility at the Dispatch Box, I had as warm, firm, positive a response from the workers in my constituency as we found anywhere else. As I say, I live there,


but I have never had the experience of any jostling, or anything like that, and want to pay a tribute to the spirit of co-operation in industrial relations of trade unionists—and management, too—in my constituency, which I have mentioned simply as an example in making the point we want to persuade the right hon. Gentleman to accept.
9.30 p.m.
Although the Committee may be disinclined to accept the arguments I have used, I think that it cannot deny that the Amendment I am proposing brings in the second of the right hon. Gentleman's principles, that which is already overtly expressed in the first, that these things should be agreed freely, voluntarily. I am sure that if hon. Members accept the wording of the first principle they will know that they must, logically, accept, in their minds if not with their voices and feet, the need to put in the second principle in harmony with the first.
It may be that the right hon. Gentleman will say, although I rather doubt whether he will, that the intention of the Amendment is already implicit in the wording of the Clause and that there is, therefore, no reason for me to press the Amendment. I always say, on such occasions, that if that is the case there is no reason for not accepting such an Amendment.

Mr. Gower: As I understand it—I hope I shall be corrected if I am wrong—the hon. Gentleman's intention is to put the words "voluntarily agreed" after the word "orderly" to prescribe "orderly, voluntarily agreed procedures". Are there not, in most codes, certain parts of the procedures which are specified in advance? Would he want all those details to be voluntarily agreed? I should like him to enlarge upon that for our guidance.

Mr. Walker: I think that if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to go on with the next part of my remarks he will see that they throw some light on my attitude and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends to this point.
I think the right hon. Gentleman knows that the Amendment was tabled for reasons which go rather beyond those I have already put to the Committee and

that it anticipates rather debates which we shall inevitably be having on later Clauses. I have, of course, no intention of trespassing now on those Clauses or those debates, but, as the right hon. Gentleman has chosen to initiate principles, we are here making clear our belief—and I hope the hon. Gentleman the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) will listen to this—that, as a matter of principle, the problems which undeniably exist in industrial relations cannot be resolved by the imposition of blue-print style solutions from outside industry, but that solutions can only be evolved on the basis of free, mutual, and voluntary agreement between those who have to apply them. So we are as a matter of principle stating now, in advance of the debates which we shall subsequently be having, and in which we shall be particularising details, our belief in voluntary, mutual agreement, rather than resort to courts of law. We are here making our principle clear. That is the signal which we are running up this evening. We are, in effect, firing a warning shot across the right hon. Gentleman's bows.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I was somewhat puzzled, until the end of his speech, by the comments of the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker)—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order. Miss Harvie Anderson. Do I understand that Amendment No. 363 is being taken with Amendment No. 348? Will the two Amendments, if need be, be voted on separately?

The Deputy Chairman: As I understand, it is the wish of the Committee to take Amendments No. 348 and 363 together. It is for the Committee to decide whether they shall be agreed or disagreed on separately at the end of the debate.

Mr. Walker: Further to that point of order. If my hon. Friends and I are dissatisfied with the replies from the Government Front Bench and, therefore, seek to divide the House, we should prefer to have separate Divisions on the Amendments.

The Deputy Chairman: I think that was also the understanding of the Chair.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: At the end of his speech the hon. Member for Doncaster indicated that he was trying to get written into the introductory clause words which would enable him afterwards to argue that certain of the disciplines of the Bill were not in tune with the introduction to the Bill. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that he should bear this in mind as it would place us in a dangerous position.
On the face of it, no one would disagree with the suggestion that orderly procedures voluntarily agreed should be developed and maintained, but hon. Gentlemen opposite must recognise that one reason for the Bill is the difficulty which has arisen over many years in getting voluntary agreement on procedures in a minority of cases. I suppose that in 95 per cent. of cases there is voluntary agreement. It is not the 95 per cent. that cause disturbances but the 5 per cent., and the 5 per cent. become more and more disruptive as the disturbances are repeated month after month, causing damage to the economy as a whole.
The hon. Member for Doncaster said that as Clause 1(1)(a) included the words:
the principle of collective bargaining freely and responsibly conducted;
it should not be difficult to introduce the words "voluntarily agreed" after "orderly" in paragraph (b). This appears to be reasonable until one looks at the last line of paragraph (b):
… with due regard to the general interest of the community;
which cuts across what the hon. Gentleman was saying.
The Bill includes certain disciplines, such as the C.I.R., the Industrial Court, and so on, because we want the trade unions in seeking voluntary agreement to have regard to the general interests of the community. The trade unions often have had regard to the general interests of the community, but they have not always done so. Voluntary agreements cannot always be achieved, and if that is the case we take the view that a situation will be created that is against the national interest.
A good deal of criticism has come from hon. Members opposite about the recent body set up by the Government to deal with the electricity workers' dispute.

The same kind of opposition has been put up by the Union of Post Office workers against accepting arbitration to end its present dispute with the Post Office management. It is argued that the procedures are wrong and the workers in fact are in dispute on the procedures. In arguing against the procedures, they are saying that the national interest is not their interest. But the House and the Government must have regard to the national interest.
Therefore, it is not always desirable that industrial relations should be geared purely to voluntary agreement. When voluntary agreement cannot be achieved it sometimes must be secured—and secured by Government intervention, by Government having a say, and by Government through a nominee putting their point of view. My fear is that if we include these words in the Bill—and one accepts that the Labour Party has good reason for putting them in—it may cut across the whole principle of what we are trying to do.

Mr. Harold Walker: I agree with the hon. Gentleman when he says that the Government must have regard to the national interest. Indeed, I sought to emphasise this factor myself when winding up the debate on an earlier Amendment. But the Bill does not propose to place this responsibility on the Government. It is the National Industrial Relations Court and the industrial tribunals and umpteen other bodies which are being asked to determine what is and what is not in the national interest. My point is that it is the Government that should be doing the determining. They are qualified to do so by virtue of the information available to them; it is their responsibility and that is what they are elected to do. It is not their duty to hand over this responsibility to an extra-governmental body. In other words, we do not want to give the job of governing to other people who are outside the Government and who are unelected.

Mr. Lewis: The hon. Gentleman can not have it both ways. He and his hon. Friends frequently argue that the Government should not in the national interest intervene on wage disputes. In so far as the Government are setting up courts of inquiry and arbitration boards, they are ensuring that the national interest should be taken into account.
It is a matter for fair discussion between the parties as to whether the Government themselves should act or whether they should have a body to act for them. We take the view that the Labour Government got into trouble because in their legislative proposals they were not supported by their back benchers or by the trade unions, but were intervening through their Minister. We now take the view that there should be a stand-off procedure, that the Government should not be involved, that the Minister should be there as a long-stop, and that the courts and the C.I.R. should act as agents for the community as a whole. The fact is that on occasion, where voluntary agreement is not possible, one has to seek intervention in one or another. If we put in the Bill a provision such as the hon. Gentleman is suggesting, it will cut across the intervention procedures laid down in the Bill, procedures which are basic to this legislation.

[Sir R. GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: As I listened to the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) moving the Amendment, I could not help reflecting that if we lived in an ideal world and an ideal country his arguments would be unanswerable. If he was right in his argument there would be no need for the Bill, and there would never be any need for "In Place of Strife", but in a country with the industrial relations background that we have had over the last few years, for anybody to argue that intervention of no kind is necessary is nonsense.
The hon. Member argued in support of the innocent-looking words "voluntarily agreed". They are very attractive words in themselves, but what about the position where, due to the pigheadedness either of management or trade union, a voluntarily-agreed procedure is not possible. How does the hon. Member propose to deal with that situation? That is the fallacy of his argument.
The hon. Member does not have to persuade any sensible Member on either side of the Committee that it is far better to have voluntarily agreed procedures; that

follows. He does not have to spend time persuading people that it is much better to have negotiations without recourse to legal proceedings in order to achieve a satisfactory result. But every hon. Member knows that certain circumstances arise where the procedure will not be agreed and where, because of the intractable nature of one side or the other—or both—negotiation will not achieve finality without resort to legal procedures. We hope, for the sake of the country, that such cases will be few in number, but there must be a means of dealing with them, and that is what the Amendment is aimed against.

Mr. Harold Walker: Perhaps I did not make myself clear when I deliberately introduced the example with which, for obvious reasons, I was particularly familiar. I was trying to demonstrate to the House and to the hon. and learned Member that the Commission on Industrial Relations has proved its ability without the need for laws to back it up, to intervene in precisely the kind of intractable situation to which the hon. and learned Member has referred and resolve it to the satisfaction of all parties. The International Harvester Company had an appalling industrial relations record, but the C.I.R. was able to secure voluntary agreements by analysing the situation and making a wide recommendation, based on the experience and expertise of those working for the Commission. That is how we envisaged the Commission working in "In Place of Strife".

Mr. Hooson: I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I agree that the Commission on Industrial Relations has done good work. As I said in the Second Reading debate, in the future a great deal of the success of the Bill will depend upon the operation of the Commission and the development of its expertise. Everybody hopes that it will be able, through the development of this expertise, to achieve voluntary agreements where on many occasions it appears impossible. The Commission has done so in the past, in very difficult circumstances.
The example given by the hon. Member for Doncaster is apposite. The Commission achieved agreement when it did not seem possible. Nevertheless, the House must remember that situations may arise where, despite the Commission's expertise, skill and experience, it will not be able


to achieve agreement. How will that situation be dealt with? That is the problem that faces us. That is why these innocent-looking words, although they may appeal to the heart, cannot appeal to anybody who adopts an intellectual approach to the problem.
This is a strangely drafted Bill, in that Clause 1 is an extension of the Preamble. In the old days the legal interpretation of the Preamble had a good deal to do with the interpretation of the Bill. It is an extension of the Preamble. If the hon. Gentleman had this Amendment included, then virtually he destroys the Bill because the Bill is not concerned with the general situation or with the situation that can be achieved by agreement, but must be primarily concerned with those situations which from experience have proved so intractable that some reserve power is needed to deal with them.

Mr. Rose: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman, but is he not aware, having said that the C.I.R. will be of the utmost importance, that already leading members of the Commission have resigned? In an article in The Times of 10th November, 1970, Mr. Alfred Allen wrote that it would be
… achieved at the expense of industry, and irreparable damage to the Commission and collective bargaining generally.
Would the hon. and learned Gentleman apply what he has said to the law of contract generally, and say that in any case where two people fail to agree a Government or other agency should enforce a contract between two parties who do not wish to agree?

Mr. Hooson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. First, may I deal with the question of resignations. They never impress me. Whenever there is legislation, especially on controversial matters, one has resignations right, left and centre. It is part of the political system. They do not affect my judgment of the matter. What those gentlemen feel, no doubt sincerely, is their business. What I feel is what I judge myself. The second point was whether there is a case sometimes for the legislature to intervene. Let me give some examples. In the law of contract we have implied terms brought in by the Sale of Goods Act where the parties disagree. This House has said that those

implied terms should be read into the contract.

Mr. Rose: rose—

Mr. Hooson: The hon. Member made an interjection and he must take the reply. This House, for the benefit of the public, introduced certain implied terms. Another example is the Monopolies legislation. A series of industrialists practising a monopoly may voluntarily give it up. It may be necessary to take legal action to ensure that the monopoly is not carried out against the public interest. Teeth were put into the Monopolies Act to enable this to be done. That is another example of this House intervening to protect the public interest. It is as necessary in industrial relations to deal with a minority of cases as it is in other spheres.

Mr. Ray Mawby: The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) made some very important points on the Amendment. Most of what I had to say is not needed now because the hon. and learned Gentleman put it so clearly that in the Bill, certainly as far as the Amendment is concerned, we are not seeking to deal with the majority of cases of negotiation but are concerned with the minority of cases which may arise. This particular part is acting as the long-stop to make certain that everyone is acting reasonably in the future.
The words "voluntarily agreed" which are sought to be inserted in the Bill are rather interesting. Apparently the Amendment supports the principle of developing and maintaining orderly and voluntarily agreed procedures in industry for the peaceful settlement of disputes.
Until now we have accepted the law as it stands, that one is concerned with an orderly and voluntarily agreed procedure. However, in many cases what has been voluntarily agreed is immediately thrown overboard when it does not suit certain persons. If the hon. Gentleman's words are to be inserted in the Bill, it is important that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite do everything possible to ensure that the intention behind the words is accepted by their friends. So often in the past that has not been the case. Negotiations have taken place, voluntary agreement has been reached, and within a few days certain members


of the agreeing union have taken unofficial action and rendered the agreement null and void.
We on this side of the Committee seek only to ensure that negotiations shall be orderly procedures in industry—

Mr. Orme: And compulsory.

Mr. Mawby: The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) says, "and compulsory". With normal orderly procedures, in most cases everyone accepts that any agreement entered into is equally binding upon the parties to it. However, while those trade union officials making the agreement really believe in it and want to carry it out, it needs only a dozen of their members to take unofficial strike action to render the agreement null and void. We have seen the result of that kind of approach, and we cannot talk glibly about agreements being arrived at voluntarily.
We have to ask ourselves by whom is an agreement arrived at voluntarily. Is it agreed by those who have been democratically elected negotiators on behalf of thousands of trade unionists? Are they the people who will voluntarily agree? If they are, will those who have democratically elected them stand by the agreement? They have not in the past. Therefore, it is reasonable to seek to ensure that those who act on behalf of trade unionists should at least be able to give reasonable certainty that their members will accept the terms of the agreement that they have entered into on a voluntary basis.

Mr. Orme: The hon. Gentleman is talking about what is happening currently in industrial affairs and about certain people rejecting collective agreements or voluntarily arrived at agreements. However, when we look at the current situation, it is clear that we are not seeing unofficial action. The Post Office workers are taking official action. The members of the hon. Gentleman's own union, the Electrical Trades Union, took official action in the recent power workers' dispute. The same happened in the local authority workers' dispute. At the moment we are seeing official action.

Mr. Mawby: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned a few disputes which are faking place now. I should like to do an

exercise to work out the number of man-hours involved in official strikes compared with the number of man-hours we are still losing in unofficial strikes—

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Industrial Relations Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. R. Carr.]

Orders of the Day — INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

Again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.

Mr. Mawby: Sir Robert, I was saying that it might be a useful exercise to work out the figures—obviously the statistics are available—for the number of man-hours lost through official strikes compared with the number involved in recent unofficial strikes.

Mr. Ted Fletcher: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to be aware that this exercise was conducted by the Donovan Commission, which said that 95 per cent. of strikes were unofficial and lasted one and a half days; that official strikes lasted three weeks; and that the number of days lost in unofficial strikes was only 5 per cent. of the total I warn the hon. Gentleman that his exercise is unnecessary. If he had read the Donovan Report he would have seen that these statistics were available.

Mr. Mawby: The hon. Gentleman has made an important point, but a point with which I have dealt in the past. The statistics for unofficial strikes will take into account only man hours lost by those on unofficial strike; they will not take into account only man-hours lost by those whose production is lost because of the unofficial strike by a relatively small number of people. Therefore, the statistics can give a completely wrong picture of the whole situation.
Hon. Gentlemen have been taking me away—

Mr. Harold Walker: I should tell the hon. Gentleman that when I was at the Department of Employment and Productivity, as it then was, the figures produced and published in the Gazette, which are the figures used by Donovan, took into account the number of days lost due to workers being laid off at the establishment where the dispute had occurred, but did not include days lost by workers laid off at other establishments For example, if, in an establishment employing 5,000 workers, 3,000 were laid off because of a strike by 100, those 3,000 were counted for the purposes of the statistics.

Mr. Mawby: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I do not wish to make too much of this point. The motor-car industry is an example where many firms sub-contract to the main assembly plant, and none of the figures for man-hours lost in the subsidiaries, sub-contractors, and so on, can be taken into account. No Department can do this. Therefore, the figures cannot be statistically accurate for an unofficial strike.
The important point which I want to make is that the wording in the Bill is reasonable and does not require the addition of the words in the Amendment. If hon. Gentlemen opposite believe that those words ought to be added, they should make certain that everyone in industry also believes and acts on them. Those words mean nothing at all. I therefore see no reason for changing what appears to be the admirable and fair wording of the subsection under discussion.

Mr. Tinn: In our debates on Amendments to the Clause we have time and again fallen foul of the difficulty of defining some of the words used. This might give support to the view of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) that the whole of this Clause and the principles which it enunciates would be better included in the Preamble, as was the fashion at one time, and thus not require precise legal definition. Time and again as non-lawyers we have found ourselves putting different interpretations on the words in the Clause but I am, nevertheless, inclined to agree with the Minister that these principles should be contained within the Bill,

despite the difficulties that this might cause, because that is preferable to having the essence of the Bill and the principles upon which it is based, in the Preamble and thus external to the Bill and perhaps in important respects conflicting with it, as has frequently happened with past legislation.
One of the difficulties that has arisen in connection with this issue of definition is that we have had to put to the Minister questions which, understandably, he has found it difficult to answer off the cuff, being a non-lawyer himself. One has sympathy with the Minister in his position, but it is an important part of his rôle to be able to answer questions put to him, and I hope that he will not again depart from his normal standards of courtesy and good humour as he did when he replied to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), when he sought, albeit by means of a point of order, to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that his assurance that any technical and legal questions put to him would be dealt with later had not been honoured during the Second Reading debate. That was a fair point put by my hon. Friend, and I hope that the Minister will think a little more about it.
I believe that the Amendment brings us to the heart of why many of us on this side of the Committee believe that the Bill is unworkable. The Minister will remember that in my contribution to the Second Reading debate I did not deny—in fact, I fully accepted—the Government's right to legislate, and their responsibility to legislate in this matter if they saw the need for it and had solutions to put forward. My opposition, and that of many of my hon. Friends, is based on the fact that we believe the Bill to be wrong and unworkable, and the Amendment gives me the opportunity to say as concisely as possible why I take that view.
Some hon. Gentlemen who had criticised the Amendment seem to be under the impression that the insertion of these words will mean that every agreement must be voluntary, thus ruling out arbitration, and so on. The subsection into which the words are sought to be inserted deals with
the principle of developing and maintaining orderly procedures in industry for the peaceful settlement of disputes".


and so on. It deals with general structures and general procedures.
In considering the Amendment we should look at those countries where legally based systems of industrial relations have worked very satisfactorily. Germany is an excellent example, and Sweden and Norway and other countries have been quoted as having systems of industrial negotiation through collective bargaining based on law. But two of the German trade union leaders, for example, readily agree that this legally based system attains its success and works only because it is acceptable to the trade union movement concerned. In other words, it is essentially a voluntary system. Recent German experience, which has so often been extolled as a model of industrial virtue and as a model for the avoidance of strikes, has shown that when faced with the disagreement of the great German trade unions the provisions for conciliation, negotiation and arbitration do not work and cannot work, and were not enforced in the recent spate of German strikes.
I do not accept all that has been said about inconsistency among those of us who supported my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). As a trade unionist I supported her. I believe that 99 per cent. of the proposals in "In Place of Strife" were good. It is tragic that just a few of them, and those not really essential to the main purpose of her Bill, aroused such trade union opposition as to be regarded as unacceptable.
But, whilst I supported the main provisions of my right hon. Friend's Bill, I do not believe that it, any more than the present legislation, would have been workable or practicable, good though it was, in the face of the genuine, solid opposition, misguided though some may have thought it, of the trade union movement. That trade union movement is, after all, comprised of men who have given a lifetime of service in it, who are much more acquainted than any of us with the full complexity of the problems they face, the great variations in customs and practice, and the different types of agreement to be dealt with, which, it is felt, would be made even more complicated rather than simplified by the introduction of lawyers.
I put it as strongly as I can to the Committee that the importance of the

insertion of these words would be that it would go some way towards recognising the total impracticability of a legally based system of industrial relations, which goes against the grain and is totally unacceptable to the trade union movement.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. McNamara: My first point refers to the reply given by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) when he spoke of the implied terms of a contract. He may unwittingly have fallen foul of the actual situation because when the law implies terms—as, for example, under the Sale of Goods Act—they are terms on which the parties to the contract think that they are already in agreement. Here we are considering a situation in which the parties do not think that they have agreement but, instead, are having terms imposed on them. That is the important distinction to make.
I want to refer in particular to Amendment No. 363, which seeks to insert the words,
without recourse to legal proceedings".
To many of us, this is one of the most important aspects of the Bill. When we come to Clauses 35 to 39, perhaps we shall deal with it at greater length. Once one brings the law into a shop floor situation, then the law is no longer a thing of awe and majesty to be observed, respected and heeded. It becomes just another element for use by one side or the other in a dispute over wages and class conditions. It becomes a weapon rightly or wrongly regarded as being in the class war. Once one introduces that kind of situation on to the shop floor, one is bringing the law into complete disrepute. To try to bring the law into our industrial relations in this way is socially divisive and threatens the whole of our social fabric, in which at present the law is properly regarded with respect.
Yet this is being proposed by the party opposite which is supposed to be basing its policies on a proper respect and regard for law and order, and the situation can only he regarded as tragic. We should never bring the law into disrepute, but this part of the Bill will do just that. Amendment No. 363 is fundamental to the whole attitude of our people throughout society to this iniquitous legislation.

Mr. Gower: There are many instances where the law has to be brought into dealings between persons, as in the case mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson). For example, there is legislation on monopolies, fraudulent practices and weights and measures. Surely the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) would not argue that this brings the law into disrepute among private traders. Again, companies are strictly regulated in their dealings.
We on this side share the anxiety of most hon. Members opposite that most of these things will be done voluntarily. Indeed, I believe that practically all of them should be carried out by voluntary action. I agree that negotiation and conciliation should be the basis and that we want to see a state of affairs where that climate prevails. But the Amendments would not cover the whole range of matters to be dealt with.
My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) mentioned cases where there have been long negotiations, perhaps over months or sometimes even years, between the democratically elected trade union leaders and the management, and yet immediately afterwards a small element has taken the view that the agreement is unsuitable and has made those negotiations abortive. Then there is the whole field of arbitration. How often in this House have we heard the Opposition, both past and present, calling upon a Minister to set up a court of inquiry or some other kind of inquiry? All these cases would not be covered by the Amendments.
We on this side want to see the voluntary element in industrial relations prevail, but we believe that there should be a background of law. That is not unreasonable, especially in the light of the fact that there is a background of law in so many mercantile activities.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Sir Robert, I wondered whether I had heard you aright then, because earlier, after my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) had spoken, I immediately rose to ask the then occupant of the Chair whether I had correctly understood that my Amendment—No. 363—was being discussed with No. 348 and I was assured that my Amendment was to be called. I naturally assumed, having one or two Amendments on the Notice Paper, that this one had slipped in by accident, because most of my Amendments have not been called.
I thought that the usual practice, which has been adopted to my knowledge for 26 years, was that when the Chair says that it is to call an Amendment with another Amendment it calls the person on the first Amendment and then the person on the next Amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster referred to my Amendment even though at that stage it had not been moved; so perhaps I can now move it, being the seventh speaker—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman does not move his Amendment now. It is moved, if he wishes to move it, in its appropriate place. He is now at liberty to speak either to his Amendment or to Amendment No. 348.

Mr. Lewis: I accept that, Sir Robert. I know the usual procedure. I think that the usual procedure is that if an hon. Member is told that his Amendment is to be called it is then called. However, having made that point, I say to my hon. Friend on my left—geographically speaking, not politically—my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), that I support all progressive Amendments which are moved from this side of the House. Life becomes a little difficult, because the Whips are going around telling us they want us to speak on one Amendment and not on another. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] They are good Amendments. All our Amendments are good. Amendment No. 348, good as it is, would be improved if my Amendment were included, because my Amendment points to the real difficulty; namely, recourse to legal proceedings. I seek to prevent there being recourse to legal proceedings.
You and I, Sir Robert, like many other hon. Members, have had the undoubted honour and pleasure of mixing daily with many hon. and learned Gentlemen. All of them are good, likeable, honourable Members. I will not say a word against any of them. The longer I remain in Parliament the more I admire them. I know that they are not the fearsome, awful gentlemen that most trade unionists think that they are.
The ordinary trade unionist does not mind what he goes through in the way of industrial practices and under his branch and lodge procedure, because he knows all that like the back of his hand. He understands and appreciates just what industrial procedure means: but he does not like recourse to legal proceedings. There is no need for it, because he knows that our great democratic trade union movement, which is the best in the world, has been built up on a voluntary basis and that, with the exception of a relatively few and greatly under-paid full-time leaders, the majority of the work is still done by voluntary workers. They know that this wonderful movement not only was founded on a voluntary basis but that most of the important union day-to-day work is still conducted on a voluntary basis.
Shop stewards, branch secretaries and union committee members are not usually paid servants. Invariably disputes are settled freely and voluntarily by debate and conciliation. To hear hon. Gentlemen opposite speak, to read comments in the Press and to hear some radio commentators one would imagine that the number of industrial disputes not settled by this means is astonishing. In fact, thousands of daily difficulties are resolved on the shop floor by shop stewards and convenors of shop stewards, and the majority of these are settled satisfactorily from the employers' and employees' point of view.
There are occasions when, unfortunately, they are not so settled, but then there is conciliation and arbitration machinery at works, district and national level.

Mr. James Hamilton: My hon. Friend will be aware of the doubt and anxiety of trade unionists in the engineering industry and their distrust of the engineering employers because of the York Memorandum. This is why we


have bad industrial relations in this industry.

Mr. Lewis: I recall that when I was a trade union official the York Memorandum presented many difficulties. It should have been done away with long before we were born. [Interruption.] I am being generous to the youthfulness of my hon. Friend, and I am not as old as I look. I know the history of the York Memorandum. It should he abolished, and we would willingly help the Government draft the Bill for its abolition.

[Mr. BRYANT GODMAN IRVINE in the Chair]

10.30 p.m.

Before my hon. Friend intervened, I was about to explain how the ordinary worker has a dislike of legal proceedings. Workers invariably go to voluntary conciliation panels and voluntary arbitration tribunals. But recently they have had doubts—and one cannot blame them—not because they are against the old established conciliation machinery in what was the Ministry of Labour, or the conciliation officers, who do a wonderful job, or the conciliation machinery which is in existence, but because of the happenings of the last six months or so whereby the Government have deliberately tried to "cook" the position by ensuring that the tribunals were fixed before they went to them. [An HON. MEMBER: "Rubbish."] The hon. Gentleman may say "Rubbish", but that is not what Mr. Jackson or the Post Office workers say. It is not what Mr. Chapple of the E.T.U. says. Only today Mr. Chapple has made a statement on this matter.

If I went to a court and found that one of the arbitrators was a director of a big steel combine which I had been attacking and which had made large donations to the Conservative Party, I would have doubts—I do not put it higher—about whether I would get fair play. There is an old maxim that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. One can understand the reluctance of a trade unionist in appearing before a body which includes Lord Wilberforce, who gets much more than the ordinary electrical worker, and the gentleman from Guest, Keen and Nettlefold,

which makes donations to the Conservative Party. One can understand the attitude of the trade unionist who says that the position will be worse if the Bill goes through without the Amendments which we have tabled. He may say, "We may go before a phoney tribunal which has been rigged and fixed by the Government. Even if that goes against us, as the Bill stands, there could be recourse to legal action against us." Is it any wonder that the trade unionist feels that the scales are weighted against him and his union?

Mr. Ashton: When, just before Christmas, the publishers of the national newspaper took out an injunction in the courts to stop the printing unions having a one-day strike on 8th December and the unions ignored it, no action was taken against them. Employers are very reluctant to bring the existing legal procedures into operation. Therefore, this Bill will be a mockery.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, I agree. As always, my hon. Friend is correct. However, I would not be in order in developing the fact that the whole of the Bill is a mockery. I agree that it is unnecessary. But I think that you, Mr. Godman Irvine, would call me to order if I were to develop that point because we are concerned with only two narrow points.
I am dealing with my Amendment which supports the official Amendment, although I believe that mine goes a little further and is rather more decisive, if I may say so, and is more in line with the feeling and attitude of the ordinary worker on the shop floor. He likes to have spelt out the fact that legal proceedings are precluded, which is the object to my Amendment. If the wording is not quite right legally, I should be prepared to accept an Amendment with the same object but in good legal phraseology.
My Amendment seeks to insert in the Clause the stipulation that there can be voluntary arbitration, voluntary negotiation and voluntary conciliation but that there shall not be compulsory legal action. I agree that the worst thing that one can do with trade unionists, particularly when there is an industrial dispute in the offing, is to threaten them with legal action. The British person—and I say "person" deliberately because I do


not mean only the British working man as such—the ordinary Britisher hates to have threats made against him, particularly by the legal profession. Therefore, I believe there could be an opportunity of settling many of these disputes on a purely voluntary basis, if it were known that there could not be the possibility of recourse to legal action.
If people knew that, not only trade unionists but the Press barons also would think to themselves, "Why should we be as bloody-minded as we may have been in the past? We can now resolve this by voluntary conciliation because we shall not have the chance of taking legal remedy. There will be no opportunity of recourse to legal proceedings." The odds are that there would be a speedier settlement and a better opportunity of reaching an amicable settlement.

Mr. Derek Coombs: If the present means of conciliation have been so effective, why have we had such a dramatic deterioration in our industrial relations, particularly with regard to unofficial stoppages, during the months before 18th June?

Mr. Lewis: If the hon. Member had been here earlier he would have heard me try to explain that one of the reasons for industrial strikes in general, and recent ones in particular, was the high rise in prices and in the cost of living, which depreciates the purchasing value of the workers' wages and their standard of living.

Mr. Coombs: Before 18th June?

Mr. Lewis: Yes. I have said that this has happened over the years—the hon. Gentleman would have heard that if he had been here earlier—with this difference, that before 18th June the workers never found that they were having taxes put on their social service benefits while at the same time hundreds of millions of pounds in tax rebates were given to the very rich and the surtax payers. This was the vast difference. Since 18th June we have had a 10 per cent. increase in the cost of living. Let us get that clear, because it is on record, and there are Ministers here who can substantiate it.
I was, I am glad to say, one of those who criticised the former Government because we thought there never could be

enough action to control prices, but at least they had a try, at least they had a go, at least they made some approach to the problem, and at least they welcomed Questions in the House, and when we raised Questions about high and unjustified price increases they answered them. But what has happened? Since 18th June this Government have deliberately refused to take any action whatever on any price increases. If the hon. Member had been here when I spoke previously—I do not think he was—he would remember that I gave chapter and verse of prices having risen by 1,500 per cent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) said it was 1,500 per cent. in one instance.

Mr. Fernyhough: My hon. Friend will not want to misrepresent what I said. What I said was that in London people at the time of the electricians' strike were charging 15s. for candles which were previously sold for 1s.

Mr. Lewis: I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend. I called that increase from 1s. to 15s. a 1,500 per cent. increase. It was an increase by 15 times. Perhaps there is not much difference! It was a slip of the tongue. I should have said 15 times, because to some hon. Members 1,500 per cent. does not seem the same as 15 times!

The Temporary Chairman: I hope the hon. Member will return to the Amendment.

Mr. Lewis: I was dealing with an interjection by an hon. Member who was rightly asking me to what extent these disputes are caused by failure on the part of trade unionists to get or keep agreements, and I was explaining that they are partly due to wage increases not being given to offset high rises in prices and the cost of living, with which this Government have definitely refused to deal. It is a bit unfair, I think, that if a worker finds that articles that he is making in his factory which are produced for x are priced at two or three times more at the shop where he buys them and he finds that—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. My reading of the Amendment is that it is about legal proceedings. Perhaps the hon.


Member would address his mind to that subject.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, Mr. Godman Irvine. I was sidetracked somewhat. I had to deal with an interjection because I thought that otherwise it might be thought I was running away from it.
As the Clause now stands, without the Amendments my hon. Friends and I are proposing, it would mean that if there were a dispute as to whether or not a worker should have an increase in wages, and if there were no attempt to resolve the dispute by negotiation or arbitration, there could be recourse to legal proceedings. I am suggesting that we should make this Amendment to say that there should be no recourse to legal proceedings. I do not think legal proceedings will help, if the dispute cannot be resolved by normal, voluntary means of negotiation, arbitration and conciliation, to see whether the worker should or should not get an extra few shillings a week to offset the continued rise in the cost of living—of about 10 per cent. on average. I do not see why, in addition to having the worry and trouble of trying to manage on a low income, he should have the worry and trouble of finding that there may be recourse to legal proceedings against him.
Therefore, when the time comes, I shall try to get a Division on the Amendment.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. R. Carr: It might be for the convenience of the Committee if I dealt first with Amendment No. 363 in the name of the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis). The hon. Gentleman wants to write into the Bill as one of the general guiding principles a provision that there shall be no recourse to legal proceedings. If we were to do that, we should not only be altering this new legislation but changing the law as it stands.
The hon. Gentleman must know that as the law stands, without any new Bill, it is possible for legal proceedings to be taken, and over the years legal proceedings have been taken in many cases, without, as far as I know, objection from the Labour Party. Some of them occurred while the Labour Government were in power, and they made no proposal

that the law should be changed to make legal proceedings impossible. What the hon. Gentleman is proposing does not apply only to the Bill. He is wanting to make impossible what is possible without the Bill. It will be interesting to know whether that is the official view, or whether it is a solo view of the hon. Member for West Ham, North.
We cannot accept the Amendment. We believe that recourse to legal action should be there as the very last resort in any matters concerned with industrial relations. It should be rarely and reluctantly used, but the possibility of legal action must be there, and it would be wrong to take it away. If we were to take it away we should put ourselves in a position which does not exist in any other industrial country in the world, and our record is such that we cannot contemplate a move in that direction. If Amendment No. 363 is moved, I must advise the Committee to reject it, and I hope we shall have the support of the Opposition Front Bench in taking that action.
Amendment No. 348 deals with the second of the four major guiding principles laid down in the Clause for the whole of this legislation. I will remind the Committee what that second principle is:
the principle of developing and maintaining orderly procedures in industry for the peaceful settlement of disputes by negotiation, conciliation or arbitration, with due regard to the general interests of the community;
The words "by voluntary agreement" would seem to be harmless and superficially welcome words to put in, but the reasons why the Committee would be wrong to put them in were given, among others, by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson). We certainly want procedures for the peaceful settlement of disputes to be voluntarily agreed. That is how it should come about, and that is why we stress in the principle that we want settlement to come about by negotiation, by conciliation or by arbitration. In doing so we are making crystal clear that we believe that the proper way to arrive at procedures for the peaceful settlement of disputes is by voluntary agreement assisted, where necessary, by conciliation and arbitration.

Mr. Orme: On the question of conciliation, how does the Minister equate that with the withdrawal of his conciliation officers at present in the Ministry? Is not this an indication of what is in the Bill?

Mr. Carr: It is monstrous to suggest that my conciliation officers have been withdrawn. The conciliation officers in my Department are active throughout the country the whole time. For every dispute which is not settled there are many more which are. Many are settled without the help of my Department's conciliation officers, but week in and week out many are settled with their assistance. I am glad, with the hon. Member's intervention, to be able to nail this lie. It is a lie that the conciliation services of my Department have been withdrawn.

Mr. Orme: Since the right hon. Gentleman says that it is a lie, why did the Post Office workers wait for four days after writing a letter to him personally requesting that his conciliation officers take action? The right hon. Gentleman is on record as saying that his Department will not conciliate to get agreements which may involve a higher figure than that already decided.

Mr. Carr: That is not what I have said, nor is it true that the Post Office workers have waited for four days. Mr. Tom Jackson only wrote the letter on Friday. Today is Monday, so let us calculate a little. I have been in the House most of the evening, with the exception of 20 minutes a little while ago when I had a cup of tea, so I have not been in contact with what happened then. But, as my right hon. Friend announced in his statement earlier, my officials have been seeing both sides this afternoon, and I shall consider, as requested by the right hon. Lady earlier, the possibility and advisability of making a statement tomorrow. It is simply not true that the conciliation services of my Department have been withdrawn.

Mrs. Castle: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that at the time of the local government manual workers dispute he stated that the conciliation services of his Department were not to be used in the normal way, and that he stated as a point of Government policy and principle that there was to be no

attempt to reach a settlement because it was to be make or break on the employers' latest offer? Will the right hon. Gentleman, if he is trying to tell us that it is a lie and that the normal conciliation services of his Department have not been withdrawn, recognise that he himself is part of those normal services, and will he, therefore, give the House an undertaking that he will tomorrow, if necessary, intervene personally in the postal workers dispute?

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I cannot in any way prevent the right hon. Gentleman from replying to what has just been said, but I hope that he will not pursue this point but will return to the Amendment which concerns the words "voluntarily agreed".

Mr. Carr: I should like to do that, Mr. Godman Irvine, but as the question has been put to me and you allowed it to be put, I hope that you will allow me to answer it briefly. My position will be the same as that of previous Ministers of Employment, Ministers of Labour, or whatever title they have had in the past; namely, that I must use my judgment about the right moment to intervene personally. This is absolutely in line with the approach adopted by all of my predecessors of all parties. There is no question of my putting myself out of consideration for a personal intervention, but whether and when must be a judgment which the Minister must exercise, as he has always done in the past, and as I hope he will do in the future.
To come back to the Amendment, the fact that we state in our principles that we wish to seek these procedures for the peaceful settlement of disputes by negotiation, conciliation and arbitration is proof positive that we want to encourage these agreements to be made by voluntary methods and not by any other method. But we also properly state—and I believe the country will expect us to state—in this principle that this must be done with due regard to the general interests of the community. That is a part of this principle.
We have to face the fact that there may be cases—unfortunately, in the last few years there have been an increasing number of cases—where voluntary procedures for the peaceful settlement of


disputes simply have not been made and do not exist. If we are to have due regard to the general interests of the community, there must be reserve powers of intervention where necessary.
This is why in Part III of the Bill, which we shall discuss in due course, we provide for remedial action where procedural agreements are non-existent or defective and where as a result of their non-existence or defectiveness the community is suffering in a serious manner. Therefore, in our view we must have this reserve power.
Even in the use of this reserve power we are laying great stress on the need to try to achieve voluntary acceptance and voluntary agreement. Thus, it is not right, as one hon. Member suggested earlier this evening, that these procedures will be laid down by the National Industrial Relations Court. That is not the case. What we propose is that if the Court sees fit, if the Court agrees as a matter of fact that there is a deficiency or the non-existence of a procedure agreement, then the Court can refer that case to the Commission on Industrial Relations, but the Commission in looking at that case is specifically charged to try to reach a voluntary agreement between the two sides. So even in the rare cases where we have to use the reserve power in the general community interest, we still intend to see that that reserve power is of such a nature in its mechanism as to give high priority to trying to arrive at a situation where the parties voluntarily accept the procedural agreement which is needed.
We lay great stress on the whole question of voluntary procedures, but we cannot limit the statement of this principle to voluntarily agreed procedures alone. If I were to accept the Amendment, it might be thought that we were saying that voluntarily agreed procedures, and only voluntarily agreed procedures, were within the principles of the Bill. We hope that they will provide the great majority of cases in this Bill, we intend to see that the Bill should encourage that majority of cases in this Bill, we intend that there must be some reserve powers for the exceptional case. That must be taken cognisance of in the wording of this principle. Therefore, I must advise the Committee to reject the Amendment.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Heffer: This has been a very interesting and important debate. Apart from one or two slightly hilarious sections, it has been a very serious debate. We regard the Amendment as a very serious one. It raises the fundamental question of the voluntary nature of the industrial relations system that has operated up till now, as against the proposal for a legal framework and legal proceedings suggested by the Government.
If we are to get better industrial relations we must continue with the voluntary system. We are not arguing—and we have never argued—that we have the best industrial relations in the world; we accept that there is a need to improve our procedures and voluntary industrial relations system. We have long argued this and have shown it by introducing a Bill—I am not talking about "In Place of Strife", which never became a Bill—which would have had the effect of improving our voluntary industrial relations system.
The Minister always gives the impression of being a very fair man—{HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I said "gives the impression"—because behind that fairly affable mask there is a fairly steely soul. He is dedicated to the concept of changing fundamentally the whole of our industrial relations system—and changing it without justification. I have heard it argued tonight by many hon. Members opposite that we need this new system because the number of unofficial strikes and, in the last six months, of official disputes has increased.
The Donovan Commission studied the background of our industrial relations for three years. It went through the whole spectrum, right into the past. It discussed the question of the legal enforceability of agreements, including procedure agreements. It is always important to refer back to Donovan, because the Government have completely ignored what Donovan says. Paragraph 1054 says:
The implications of making collective agreements into binding legal contracts are examined. A measure which had the effect of putting on unions a legal obligation to use their best endeavours to secure the observance of procedure agreements would be more likely to lead to internal union disruption than to fewer unofficial strikes. In present circumstances, no proposal to impose legal sanctions


on individuals who strike in breach of procedure agreements is practicable if it relies on enforcement by the employer.
It may be said that Donovan can be hedged round and that what the Government propose is not entirely Donovan. But the point is that all those who have any real knowledge of our industrial relations system are totally against the enforceability of contracts and for the continuation of the voluntary system.
I come then to the contribution of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson). I confess that I never know where the Liberal Party stands on any matter. Its Members usually try to face both ways, as their voting on the previous Amendment made clear. Nevertheless, the hon. and learned Gentleman made an interesting point. He said that the Amendment was an appeal to the heart and not to the intellect.
I have heard remarks like that before. I always get a little worried when people appeal to intellectuals in any discussion of industrial relations. I am not opposed to intellectuals. I have myself sometimes been accused of being a sort of pseudo-intellectual—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"] I would not expect hon. Gentlemen opposite to appreciate that point.
The concept of introducing the law and appealing to the intellect is out of line with the realities of industrial relations. We do not need it. It is unnecessary. It does not solve the problems. It does not improve industrial relations.

Mr. Hooson: The hon. Gentleman has been good enough to refer to the point that I raised. But would he answer the question which I posed in my speech? How would he deal with those minimal cases where a procedure is not voluntarily agreed? How would the hon. Gentleman deal with a situation where, because one side is intractable, no agreement proves possible?

Mr. Heffer: I am glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman asked that question. I was just about to come to it. He talked about a longstop. He accepts, as other hon. Members do, that there are cases where there are intractable problems.

That is why a number of my hon. Friends and I did not object to the setting up of the Commission on Industrial Relations at the time of "In Place of Strife". We recognised that there are certain cases which raise very difficult problems. The C.I.R. was the blob of oil which could lubricate the wheels and help overcome the problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) gave a good example earlier—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] That is the answer to the question. Whenever a case raises great problems, it is referred to the C.I.R. The Commission goes into operation and produces a system based upon voluntary discussion which is designed to overcome the difficulties.

Hon. Gentlemen opposite do not accept that. They do not believe in it. They want to bring the law into every facet of our industrial relations. They talk about longstops. They say that the voluntary system must be operated, and that only as a last resort will the law be used.

If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen are genuinely concerned about the voluntary system, they should accept without question the Amendments which we have put down. They are sensible Amendments which seek to continue the system of voluntary negotiations. The Amendments strengthen the Clause by making clear precisely what we are seeking. That is why I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends, in view of the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman, to divide the Committee and support the Amendments.

The Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) was a bit of free enterprise which on this occasion we are willing to accept and support. The right hon. Gentleman said that there were legal proceedings to which we had never objected in the past. That is quite true. But we are discussing a Bill which fundamentally changes our industrial relations system. Because of this, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support both Amendments.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 247. Noes, 282.

Division No. 56.]
AYES
[11.12 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Bagier, Gordon A. T.


Albu, Austen
Ashton, Joe
Barnes, Michael


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Atkinson, Norman
Barnett, Joel




Baxter, William
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Murray, Ronald King


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Ogden, Eric


Bidwell, Sydney
Hardy, Peter
O'Halloran, Michael


Bishop, E. S.
Harper, Joseph
O'Malley, Brian


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Harison, Walter (Wakefield)
Oram, Bert


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Orbach, Maurice


Booth, Albert
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Orme, Stanley


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Heffer, Eric S.
Oswald, Thomas


Bradley, Tom
Hilton W. S.
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Horam, John
Padley, Walter


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Paget, R. T.


Buchan, Norman
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Palmer, Arthur


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Huckfield, Leslie
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Pavitt, Laurie


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Pendry, Tom


Carmichael, Neil
Hunter, Adam
Pentland, Norman


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Janner, Greville
Perry, Ernest G.


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Prescott, John


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Price, William (Rugby)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
John, Brynmor
Probert, Arthur


Cohen, Stanley
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Reed, D.(Sedgefield)


Coleman, Donald
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Concannon, J. D.
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Conlan, Bernard
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Richard, Ivor


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Cronin, John
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Judd, Frank
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)
Kaufman, Gerald
Roper, John


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Kelley, Richard
Rose, Paul B.


Dalyell, Tam
Kerr, Russell
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Davidson, Arthur
Kinnock, Neil
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Lambie, David
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lamond, James
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Latham, Arthur
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Deakins, Eric
Lawson, George
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Delargy, H. J.
Leadbitter, Ted
Sillars, James


Dell Rt. Hn. Edmund
Leonard, Dick
Silverman, Julius


Devlin, Miss Bernadette
Lestor, Miss Joan
Small, William


Doig, Peter
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Dormand, J. D.
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Spearing, Nigel


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Spriggs, Leslie


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lipton, Marcus
Stallard, A. W.


Driberg, Tom
Lomas, Kenneth
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Dunn, James A.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Eadie, Alex
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Strang, Gavin


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McBride, Neil
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McCann, John
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Ellis, Tom
McCartney, Hugh
Swain, Thomas


English, Michael
McElhone, Frank
Taverne, Dick


Evans, Fred
McGuire, Michael
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Faulds, Andrew
Mackenzie, Gregor
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Fernyhough, E.
Mackie, John
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Mackintosh, John P.
Tinn, James


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Maclennan, Robert
Tomney, Frank


Fitt, Garard (Belfast, W.)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Urwin, T. W.


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Varley, Eric G.


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Wainwright, Edwin


Foley, Maurice
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Foot, Michael
Marks, Kenneth
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Ford, Ben
Marquand, David
Wallace, George


Forrester, John
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Watkins, David



Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Weitzman, David


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Meacher, Michael
Wellbeloved, James


Freeson, Reginald
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mendelson, John
Whitehead, Phillip


Garrett, W. E.
Mikardo, Ian
Whitlock, William


Gilbert, Dr. John
Millan, Bruce
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Ginsberg, David
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Golding, John
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Molloy, William
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)



Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Moyle, Roland
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Mr. William Hamling







NOES


Adley, Robert
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Mawby, Ray


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Gibson-Watt, David
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Goodhart, Philip
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Astor, John
Goodhew, Victor
Miscampbell, Norman


Atkins, Humphrey
Gorst, John
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Gower, Raymond
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Baker, W. H. K.
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Moate, Roger


Balniel, Lord
Gray, Hamish
Molyneaux, James


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Green, Alan
Money, Ernie


Batsford, Brian
Grieve, Percy
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Monro, Hector


Bell, Ronald
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Montgomery, Fergus


Benyon, W.
Grylls, Michael
More, Jasper


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Gummer, Selwyn
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Biffen, John
Gurden, Harold
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Biggs-Davison, John
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mudd, David


Body, Richard
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Boscawen, Robert
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Neave, Airey


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Bowden, Andrew
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Normanton, Tom


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Haselhurst, Alan
Nott, John


Braine, Bernard
Havers, Michael
Onslow, Cranley


Bray, Ronald
Hawkins, Paul
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Brewis, John
Hayhoe, Barney
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Heseltine, Michael
Osborn, John


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Hicks, Robert
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Higgins, Terence L.
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hiley, Joseph
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Bryan, Paul
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Pardoe, John


Buck, Antony
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


Burden, F. A.
Holland, Philip
Percival, Ian


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Holt, Miss Mary
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Carlisle, Mark
Hooson, Emlyn
Pink, R. Bonner


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hordern, Peter
Pounder, Rafton


Channon, Paul
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Chapman, Sydney
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Howell, David (Guildford)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Churchill, W. S.
Hunt, John
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Raison, Timothy


Clegg, Walter
James, David
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Cockeram, Eric
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn Sir Peter


Cooke, Robert
Jessel, Toby
Redmond, Robert


Coombs, Derek
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Cooper, A. E.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Cormack, Patrick
Jopling, Michael
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Costain, A. P.
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Critchley, Julian
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Curran, Charles
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kershaw, Anthony
Ridsdale, Julian


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Kimball, Marcus
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Dean, Paul
Kinsey, J. R.
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Kirk, Peter
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Rost, Peter


Dixon, Piers
Knox, David
Royle, Anthony


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Lane, David
Russell, Sir Ronald


Drayson, G. B.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
St. John-Stevas, Norman


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Dykes, Hugh
Le Merchant, Spencer
Scott, Nicholas


Eden, Sir John
Lewis, Kennth (Rutland)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Longden, Gilbert
Sharples, Richard


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Loveridge, John
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Eyre, Reginald
MacArthur, Ian
Simeons, Charles


Farr, John
McCrindle, R. A.
Sinclair, Sir George


Fell, Anthony
McLaren, Martin
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Fidler, Michael
McMaster, Stanley
Soref, Harold


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Speed, Keith


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Spence, John


Fookes, Miss Janet
Maddan, Martin
Sproat, Iain


Foster, Sir John
Madel, David
Stainton, Keith


Fowler, Norman
Maginnis, John E.
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fox, Marcus
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Steel, David


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Marten, Neil
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Fry, Peter
Mather, Carol
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)







Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Trafford, Dr. Anthony
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Stokes, John
Trew, Peter
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Tugendhat, Christopher
Wiggin, Jerry


Sutcliffe, John
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Wilkinson, John


Tapsell, Peter
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)
Woodnutt, Mark


Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Tebbit, Norman
Wall, Patrick
Younger Hn. George


Temple, John M.
Walters, Dennis



Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Ward, Dame Irene
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Warren, Kenneth
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and


Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Wells, John (Maidstone)
Mr. Tim Fortescue


Tilney, John

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

Mr. Peter Archer: I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 1, line 13, after 'peaceful', insert 'and expeditious'.
This Amendment is another bit of private enterprise, but it may mean a period of relative peace and quiet for the House as it entails the addition of only two words. I should like to make it clear that I do not regard it as just a minor textual Amendment. I invite the Secretary of State to demonstrate that he has grasped what I consider to be a fundamental point about industrial relations—the effect on the human mind of a remedy unduly delayed. The fundamental reason for negotiations so frequently breaking down is a sheer loss of patience. Many wage claims have eventuated in strikes because they have been unresolved for so long.
But, of course, about half the unofficial strikes, if we are to believe the Donovan Commission, are not about wages at all. Many of them are about grievances which sometimes in cold print appear remarkably small matters, sometimes almost frivolous. They are matters which could be resolved very quickly if someone was minded to resolve them. Why do they give rise so often to industrial action? In my submission it is not because anyone enjoys industrial action or because people want to strike and not, normally, because shop stewards are minded to foment a situation of that kind.
I remind the Committee of what the Donovan Commission said about shop stewards:
Our clear impression, reinforced by the results of our surveys of workshop relations, is that shop stewards in the motor industry, like shop stewards elsewhere are in general hard-working and responsible people who are

making a sincere attempt to do a difficult job. Often, in fact, the stewards are cast in the role of mediators trying to prevent stoppages taking place while grievances can be examined.
The difficulty is often that those responsible for management are just too busy—and one has some sympathy with them. They have other things to attend to, such as production and maintenance. But those who suffer are confronted with a situation every moment of their working day, day after day and week after week. For the management, it is too easy to forget these matters; for the workers, it is too difficult to forget them. [Interruption.] Then, of course, one day tempers simply explode and then there is industrial action. Frequently, the matter is rectified with a remarkable expedition which might have been applied very much earlier. [Interruption.] This is—

The Chairman: Order. I must ask the Committee to give a little more silence. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to a good hearing, and I am sure that we would like to hear him.

Mr. Archer: I am grateful to you, Sir Robert. It is always difficult at this time of the evening. I shall try not to delay the Committee for long.
This is only one type of problem which arises. Sometimes, of course, there are disputes which have to be resolved quickly, otherwise it is too late to resolve them at all. The question of the holiday rota which is published only a very short time before it is to take effect is an example. This sort of thing is the flesh and blood of which industrial relations are made. What is needed is a method of ensuring that this kind of dispute is rectified quickly.
The whole difficulty is that the negotiating procedure is so frequently too slow. What is the remedy proposed by the Government? They propose to make a


list of what they call "unfair practices" and refer them to the Industrial Court. I suspect that at this stage I may forfeit the support of some of my hon. Friends but I say this because honesty compels me to say it. Everything I have ever said and written is consistent with a profound respect for the procedures evolved by our common law in the settlement of this kind of dispute, which traditionally have found their way into the law courts, and I do not resile from that for a moment. But there are two conditions. I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman will get off on the wrong foot on this point because, as has been said more than once today, members of trade unions feel, to begin with, that this is no solution to the problem of expediting the resolution of their disputes.
Every time Shakespeare wrote about it, the word "law" has given rise to association of the word "delays", and sometimes for very good reason. In the debate on the Courts Bill last week many hon. Members pointed out that the civil lists were subject to considerable delays with which the legal system had not coped. I do not believe that that is built into the procedures of the common law, but it is very much the way people feel about the law. I suspect that the Secretary of State will find it difficult to convince the unions that he has hit on a method of expediting the resolution of their disputes by referring them to a legal procedure in this way.
11.30 p.m.
Second, again without for a moment apologising for my respect for the solutions of the common law, they were not designed to resolve disputes which demand solution within days, if not hours. Has the Secretary of State given thought to some of the questions of time which will arise under the procedure which the Bill prescribes? Has he made any estimate of the number of cases which are likely to be referred under the Bill to the Industrial Court in the first 12 months of its existence? Has he given any thought to the pre-trial procedures, because obviously it is not a method of expediting the solution of these problems to bring them before the court without there first being some form of written submissions in an attempt to determine the issues with which the court will be confronted? Has he made any estimate of the time a reference

will take from the moment of first submission until it is heard?
I am a little worried about the solution that the right hon. Gentleman has proposed at a time when it has been found that the existing procedures are too slow, a matter to which the right hon. Gentleman himself referred in the debate on the last Amendment. If it is discovered that an existing procedure is too slow, the Secretary of State can submit it under Clause 35 to the Industrial Court, and the Court can consider it. If the court is satisfied that it is too slow, it refers it to the Commission. Then the Commission attempts to see whether there can be some agreement between the parties. If that fails, the Commission formulates proposals which are retransmitted to the Court. The Court considers those proposals and, if it deems them suitable, confirms them. At that stage the new procedure goes back to the original negotiators to sort out the very situation which gave rise to the dispute in the first place.
Many of these problems will be discussed later during the Committee stage. At this stage I merely invite the Secretary of State to indicate that he is at least aware of the problem, because it is a problem which is daily and hourly with those whose job it is to resolve industrial disputes. If the right hon. Gentleman agrees that this is part of the problem, he can make a beginning by accepting the Amendment.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): We appreciate the way in which the hon. Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Archer) moved his Amendment. We understand that he has a profound respect for the rule and application of law, and it is very difficult indeed at this stage to make an estimate of how many cases there will be initially when the Bill becomes law.
I will not labour the point, because it is not entirely material to the point under discussion, but the courts will be a last resort in all these procedures. Conciliation comes first. These courts are deliberately designed to be flexible and informal. I assume, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who has a far greater experience than I of courts and the law, will believe, that with those procedures there will be a speeding up


of cases compared with some of the delays which occur in other facets of the law at present.
Much earlier today the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) said that he hoped that we would not be hidebound in our approach to the Bill and that, as the various Amendments were discussed, if there were one or two of merit and if they commended themselves to us we would look favourably on them and would not, because the Bill has been so admirably drafted, wish to preserve every dot, comma and word without any additions or subtractions. That is precisely the case and I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that we accept the Amendment.
It is, naturally, desirable that disputes should be settled as rapidly as possible. There is common ground about that. If a procedure is unduly long, frustration builds up and industrial action is likely to follow, and this is often a cause of difficulty. It is for this reason that we believe that the insertion of the word "expeditious" may have some merit, though I must sound a word of caution; that it would be undesirable to encourage speed at the expense of thoroughness.

Mrs. Castle: We are, of course, glad that the Government have had the common sense to accept this sensible Amendment which my hon. Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer) moved so effectively. He established an overwhelming case for the need to speed up the procedures for the settlement of disputes. We are glad that, by accepting the insertion of this word, the Government have recognised this.
As the Secretary of State said earlier, the country will judge the Government by deeds and not by words. We therefore expect that the principle which they have accepted by including the word "expeditious" will be embodied in Amendments involving action.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 363 proposed: In line 14, after 'negotiation', insert
'without recourse to legal proceedings'.—[Mr. Arthur Lewis.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 245, Noes 281.

Division No. 57.]
AYES
[11.38 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Conlan, Bernard
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Albu, Austen
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Foley, Maurice


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Crawshaw, Richard
Foot, Michael


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Cronin, John
Ford, Ben


Armstrong, Ernest
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Forrester, John


Ashton, Joe
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Atkinson, Norman
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)
Freeson, Reginald


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Galpern, Sir Myer


Barnes, Michael
Dalyell, Tam
Garrett, W. E.


Barnett, Joel
Davidson, Arthur
Gilbert, Dr. John


Baxter, William
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Ginsburg, David


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.


Bidwell, Sydney
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Bishop, E. S.
Deakins, Eric
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Delargy, H. J.
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Booth, Albert
Devlin, Miss Bernadette
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Doig, Peter
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Bradley, Tom
Dormand, J. D.
Hamling William


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hardy, Peter


Buchan, Norman
Driberg, Tom
Harper, Joseph


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Dunn, James A.
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Eadie, Alex
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Heffer, Eric S.


Cant, R. B.
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Hilton, W. S.


Carmichael, Neil
Ellis, Tom
Horam, John


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
English, Michael
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Evans, Fred
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Faulds, Andrew
Huckfield, Leslie


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Fernyhough, E.
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Cohen, Stanley
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)


Coleman, Donald
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Concannon, J. D.
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Hunter, Adam




Janner, Greville
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Rose, Paul B.


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Meacher, Michael
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Mendelson, John
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


John, Brynmor
Mikardo, Ian
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Millan, Bruce
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Sillars, James


Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Molloy, William
Silverman, Julius


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Small, William


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Spearing, Nigel


Judd, Frank
Moyle, Roland
Spriggs, Leslie


Kaufman, Gerald
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Stallard, A. W.


Kelley, Richard
Murray, Ronald King
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Kerr, Russell
Ogden, Eric
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Kinnock, Neil
O'Halloran, Michael
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Lambie, David
O'Malley, Brian
Strang, Gavin


Lamond, James
Oram, Bert
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Latham, Arthur
Orbach, Maurice
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Lawson, George
Orme, Stanley
Swain, Thomas


Leadbitter, Ted
Oswald, Thomas
Taverne, Dick


Leonard, Dick
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Lestor, Miss Joan
Padley, Walter
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Paget, R. T.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)
Palmer, Arthur
Tinn, James


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Tomney, Frank


Lipton, Marcus
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Urwin, T. W.


Lomas, Kenneth
Pavitt, Laurie
Varley, Eric G.


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Wainwright, Edwin


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Pendry, Tom
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Pentland, Norman
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


McBride, Neil
Perry, Ernest G.
Watkins, David


McCann, John
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Weitzman, David


McCartney, Hugh
Prescott, John
Wellbeloved, James


McElhone, Frank
Price, William (Rugby)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


McGuire, Michael
Probert, Arthur
Whitehead, Phillip


Mackenzie, Gregor
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Whitlock, William


Mackie, John
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Mackintosh, John P.
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Maclennan, Robert
Richard, Ivor
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


McNamara, J. Kevin
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


MacPherson, Malcolm
Robertson, John (Paisley)



Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Marquand, David
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Mr. Kenneth Marks and


Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Roper, John
Mr. John Golding




NOES


Adley, Robert
Burden, F. A.
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Eyre, Reginald


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Carlisle, Mark
Farr, John


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Fell, Anthony


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Channon, Paul
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy


Astor, John
Chapman, Sydney
Fidler, Michael


Atkins, Humphrey
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Chichester-Clark, R.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Baker, W. H. K.
Churchill, W. S.
Fookes, Miss Janet


Balniel, Lord
Clarks, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fortescue, Tim


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Cockerham, Eric
Foster, Sir John


Batsford, Brian
Cooke, Robert
Fowler, Norman


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Coombs, Derek
Fox, Marcus


Bell, Ronald
Cooper, A. E.
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)


Benyon, W.
Cormack, Patrick
Fry, Peter


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Costain, A. P.
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.


Biffen, John
Critchley, Julian
Gibson-Watt, David


Biggs-Davison, John
Curran, Charles
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Dalkeith, Earl of
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Body, Richard
Davies, John (Knutsford)
Goodhart, Philip


Boscawen, Robert
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Goodhew, Victor


Bossom, Sir Clive
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Gorst, John


Bowden, Andrew
Dean, Paul
Gower, Raymond


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)


Braine, Bernard
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Gray, Hamish


Bray, Ronald
Dixon, Piers
Green, Alan


Brewis, John
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Grieve, Percy


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Drayson, G. B.
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Dykes, Hugh
Grylls, Michael


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Eden, Sir John
Gummer, Selwyn


Bryan, Paul
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)


Buck, Antony
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hall, John (Wycombe)







Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Scott, Nicholas


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Scott-Hopkins, James


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Sharples, Richard


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Haselhurst, Alan
Miscampbell, Norman
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Havers, Michael
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Simeons, Charles


Hawkins, Paul
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Sinclair, Sir George


Hayhoe, Barney
Moate, Roger
Skeet, T. H. H.


Heseltine, Michael
Molyneaux, James
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Hicks, Robert
Money, Ernie
Soref, Harold


Higgins, Terence L.
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Speed, Keith


Hiley, Joseph
Monro, Hector
Spence, John


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Montgomery, Fergus
Sproat, Iain


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
More, Jasper
Stainton, Keith


Holland, Philip
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Holt, Miss Mary
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Steel, David


Hooson, Emlyn
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Hordern, Peter
Mudd, David
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn&amp;Dame Patricia
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Howe, Hn. Sir (Geoffrey Reigate)
Neave, Airey
Stokes, John


Howell, David (Guildford)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Normanton, Tom
Sutcliffe, John


Hunt, John
Nott, John
Tapsall, Peter


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Onslow, Cranley
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


James, David
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Jessel, Toby
Osborn, John
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)


Joihnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Tebbit, Norman


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Temple, John M.


Jopling, Michael
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Pardoe, John
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Percival, Ian
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Kershaw, Anthony
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Tilney, John


Kimball, Marcus
Pink, R. Bonner
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Pounder, Rafton
Trew, Peter


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Tugendhat, Christopher


Kinsey, J. R.
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Kirk, Peter
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Knox, David
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Lane, David
Raison, Timothy
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Wall, Patrick


Le Marchant, Spencer
Redmond, Robert
Walters, Dennis


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Ward, Dame Irene


Longden, Gilbert
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Warren, Kenneth


Loveridge, John
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
White Roger (Gravesend)


MacArthur, Ian
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


McCrindle, R. A.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Wiggin, Jerry


McLaren, Martin
Ridsdale, Julian
Wilkinson, John


Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christpher


Maddan, Martin
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Woodnutt, Mark


Madel, David
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Maginnis, John E.
Rost, Peter
Younger, Hn. George


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Royle, Anthony



Marten, Neil
Russell, Sir Ronald
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mather, Carol
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and


Mawby, Ray
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Mr. Walter Clegg.

11.47 p.m.

Mr. R. Carr: On a point of order, Sir Robert. I have been considering the stage that we have reached in our deliberations today. I must confess that the progress that we have made has, I am afraid, been pretty slow and disappointing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] It is all very well for the right hon. Lady and others to say "Nonsense", but we all know that there are very big and important issues ahead of us—issues which are genuinely controversial in the full and proper sense of the

word. Yet here we are, still only having completed line 14 of page 1 of the Bill. In other words, we are dealing with the early part of Clause 1, a Clause which is not controversial, a Clause which at least one hon. Member opposite agreed with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) might be so unimportant as to be possibly included in a non-debatable preamble. That is the view which was expressed by one of the right hon. Lady's supporters.
After seven hours or more, having reached only line 14 in a Clause which is really a statement of principles which I would have thought was generally agreed throughout the country, I cannot help but express disappointment. I am sorry if the Opposition do not agree, but that is our view.
Nevertheless, this is the first day of the Committee, and it is now ten minutes to twelve. It seems to me that we have to decide to go on a great deal longer—for it is not, I think, convenient for hon. Members to stop here only a bit, because of transport, and so forth—or to stop now further consideration of the Bill today. Alternatively, we must decide to go on for quite a while longer. While I certainly hope and believe that we shall make much faster progress tomorrow, I hope that it may be convenient to the Committee to adjourn now.
Therefore, I beg to move,
That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Mrs. Castle: We of course accept this Motion, though we are willing to go on if the right hon. Gentleman wants us to go on. We believe that this is a very important piece of legislation indeed—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Yes very important; one of the most seriously reactionary pieces of legislation which even a Conservative Government have produced. We intend to see that it is examined responsibly and carefully by the Opposition.
While accepting the right hon. Gentleman's Motion, I want totally to repudiate his suggestion that we have spent an unnecessary amount of time on Clause 1. It really is rather odd for the right hon. Gentleman to affix to the beginning of the Bill a very unusual formula, a series of guiding principles—but that is his choice, this odd manoeuvre—and to say, in Clause 1 (2), that these principles are to be guiding principles for the courts and for Ministers and for the tribunals under his Bill, and then to complain because we want to examine these principles.
If that is to be his approach, then I think that indeed the country will judge him as being factious in his attitude and denying us the right to exercise responsibly the duties of the Opposition.

We shall continue to do so. We accept his Motion, but I can assure him again, as I did at the beginning, that we do not intend to filibuster, we do not intend to put down unnecessary Amendments, but, equally, we do not intend to be done out of our democratic right to examine this important Bill exhaustively.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Speed.]

11.54 p.m.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I am grateful that I have at last the opportunity to raise on the Adjournment this subject of the events in Belfast during the weekend 3rd to 5th July, 1970. Hon. Members may ask, why am I raising events of July, 1970, in January, 1971? The answer is that I have been trying to do so ever since October, and I have only just succeeded in the ballot. Indeed, until I succeeded, I began to think that the ballot for the Adjournment took place rather on the lines of the allocation of prizes under Premium Bonds.
Secondly, hon. Members may ask why this subject has been raised by me, a Member for an English constituency, when the events occurred in Northern Ireland in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) who, I understand, will be trying to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The answer is that my interest in this subject began originally when a constituent of mine whose sister lives in the area affected wrote and asked me to take up the matter of his sister being prevented during the period under discussion from visiting her niece in hospital. That is why I have taken an interest, and my interest has grown the more I have learned about this matter.
This episode occurred in Northern Ireland and, like many hon. Members on both sides of the House, I have strong feelings about events in Northern Ireland. I have, for example, strong feelings about the imprisonment of my hon.


Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus) who, I know, wished to be here to listen to this debate. I am raising this matter tonight not because it relates specifically to Northern Ireland but because it is central to the rule of law and the freedom of the individual anywhere in the United Kingdom. What took place in the Lower Falls of Belfast in July, 1970, could take place in Longsight, Manchester, or in any other part of this country under the same legal rules at any time now or in the future, and I believe it was wrong.
There are differing versions of what took place in the Lower Falls area on 3rd July leading to the restrictions of movement. It is known that there was a search for arms, and this was followed by what the noble Lord the Minister of State described on 6th July in this House as a "street battle". For the sake of argument, let us accept that his description of what took place is accurate. But then what followed? General Freeland issued a press release, which is extremely important. It began:
The Director of Operations, Lt.-General Sir Ian Freeland, has declared that there is to be an immediate curfew until further notice in the area of the Lower Falls.
It ended:
All civilians in the locality are to get into their houses…
—delightful language—
… immediately and to stay there. After military occupation anyone found on the street will be arrested.
The key words are, "an immediate curfew" and "will be arrested".
After the issue of that Press release a helicopter flew over the area from which the following words were called out:
This area is now under curfew. You are to go to your homes and remain there. Anyone found on the streets will be arrested.
That restriction on movement started from 10 o'clock on the Friday night and lasted until the Sunday morning. During that time thousands of people, perhaps as many as 10,000, were placed under what amounted to house arrest. Hundreds of men were prevented from going to work at a time when they particularly needed the overtime and were eligible for it. It is estimated that they were deprived of £3,500 in income. Many

people were deprived of food for many hours. Houses were ransacked. People were stopped from going to mass and confession. Sick children were prevented from going to hospital. A wedding was prevented from taking place. A man was fatally shot.
Patrick Elliman, an asthmatic aged 62, was going out for a breath of air. He went to the end of the street, he was shot and never regained consciousness. He was shot, although the Press release said that the penalty for violating the curfew was arrest. Yet this man going for a breath of air was shot dead without a challenge. To make matters worse, after he was taken to hospital and after his sister who lived with him went to another house, troops dossed down in that man's house for the night.
The matter was raised in the House on 6th July, 1970, by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West, and the noble Lord the Minister of State said, first, that no formal curfew was imposed, and second, that the restrictions upon movement were an operational measure. The noble Lord gave no other explanation regarding the legality of this operation and at no stage during the prolonged exchanges which took place did he mention the phrase "the common law". The noble Lord said that there was no curfew, and of course he was right. There could not have been a curfew because a curfew could have been imposed only in two circumstances: either if a state of emergency had been declared—and none had—or if the Riot Act had been read by a magistrate, and nobody says the Riot Act had been read.
General Freeland said there was a curfew. What is more, not only did he say it and his agents go about saying it, but it was written down. I have a copy, and I sent a copy to the Secretary of State for Defence. The Minister who is to reply to the debate told me in a letter in November that the term "curfew" was used by the Army authorities to describe the restrictions, because it is one which is widely understood. But it was far from being widely understood. Patrick Elliman, who was shot dead when he went for his breath of air, certainly did not understand it. In any case, a word of such gravity should not be used loosely. Precision is most necessary when the liberty of the subject is affected.
If this was not a curfew, what was the legal authority for the restriction of movement of these thousands of people and for the other actions taken against them? The justification we have had is not the justification which the Minister of State gave on 6th July, 1970. It is a retrospective justification, the justification of the common law.
In my correspondence with the Ministry, which has lasted several months, I have had two versions of the reasons for the invocation of the common law. The Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Lambton), told me that in the circumstances then existing the Army was carrying out a duty based upon its common law obligations to preserve the peace and to protect life and property. The Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour), said that the restrictions were imposed by the General Officer Commanding in accordance with his common law duty to maintain public order on the occasion of rioting. Those are two differing versions.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed spoke about preserving the peace and protecting life and property. If the troops were seeking to protect life and property, not only did they signally fail but it was they themselves who violated life and property. The only lives taken that night were the four lives taken by troops. There was one life taken in the curfew area, that of Patrick Elliman. They were the only lives taken during the curfew period.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ian Gilmour): indicated dissent.

Mr. Kaufman: The Minister must not shake his head like that. If he can tell us of any other lives taken in the curfew area by other than the troops, we shall listen with care when he speaks.
My purpose is not to say anything against the troops. They were English and Scottish troops—not Irish troops—sent to clear up the mess caused by the Northern Ireland Tories—[An HON. MEMBER: "The mess you made."] I am doing my best to keep to the question of the rule of law. I have photographs I will show to hon. Members in any part of the House of the damage to property

caused by troops who, according to the Minister, were using the common law to protect property.

Captain L. P. S. Orr: Would the hon. Gentleman not concede that it is important for the rule of law that the unlawful use and possession of arms ought to be brought to an end?

Mr. Kaufman: That is not a matter that is under discussion. I have not questioned the right of the troops to go in and search for arms, though they gathered remarkably few considering that they had nearly three days in which to gather them.
If one comes to the question of the invocation of the rule of law, I have been able to find no authority for the interpretation of common law in the way either the hon. Member for Berwick-on-Tweed submitted or that the hon. Gentleman who is to reply to this debate has submitted. Maitland in his "Constitutional History of England" says that the common law obliges the citizen to aid in suppression of unlawful force. This may just cover the situation but does not cover the action taken, namely, what amounted to a curfew. Wade and Phillips in their "Constitutional Law" say:
In time of invasion or insurrection on a wide scale … the military … are then entitled to give directions to and impose restrictions upon civilians in order to fulfil their duty to repel invaders or suppress rebels.
This covers the action taken, but does not cover the situation that obtained. There was certainly no invasion from anywhere. There was no insurrection on a wide scale. The Minister in his letter does no more than to say that it was a situation of riot.
When in Opposition the Conservative Party accused the Labour Party of never being willing to admit a mistake. Why should not the Under Secretary of State, who is known, perhaps almost uniquely on his side, for a civilised approach to matters, come to the House and put matters right by admitting that a mistake was made? Why cannot he come here tonight and admit that General Freeland lost his head on that day? There is much evidence, including his disgraceful telephone conversation with the Administrator of St. Peter's Parish, Father Murphy, with whom he opened a telephone conversation with


the words "Father Murphy, you are now under my orders". Why cannot the Minister admit that General Freeland took action he had no right to take.
This will not bring Patrick Elliman back to life, but it will show that the rule of law still has meaning and that the Government will never allow such a violation of the rule of law to happen again.

12.8 a.m.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: In the very tense situation which now exists in Northern Ireland, I trust I will say nothing to exacerbate the position.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Perhaps Mr. Deputy Speaker did not notice, but I would point out that there was someone from this side of the House who wanted to take part.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): The Chair has called the hon. Member who caught her eye. Mr. Fitt.

Mr. Fitt: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for using your discretion in my favour on this occasion. As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) said, these events happened in my constituency. After such a lapse of time, one would hope that feeling in that area would have settled down to such an extent that there would be no recurrence of violence.
The specific question I wish to put to the hon. Gentleman who is to reply to the debate is to ask him to explain to the House the exact legality of the curfew which then took place. I remember the occasion very well. I arrived home in Belfast from this House on that Friday evening. I immediately heard that there had been trouble and that curfew had been imposed. I got in touch with the Ministery of Home Affairs in Northern Ireland, with the Prime Minister's office and with the office of the United Kingdom representative. I appealed to him that I, as the Westminster representative of that constituency, should be allowed into that constituency to see what was happening. I was told in no uncertain terms that I would not be permitted to enter that area.
I regard this as an infringement of my rights as the representative of that area,

because subsequently many allegations were made against the activities of the British troops during that three-day curfew and I should have thought that the House would have agreed that the representative of that area should have been allowed into that constituency to see what was happening during the period of curfew. The House cannot object if allegations were made against British troops if the elected representative of the area concerned was not allowed to go in to see what was happening.
It is well known in Northern Ireland—and I am sure that it will be accepted by both sides of the House—that when this curfew was announced it was recognised by shouting from a helicopter and by notice given by General Freeland. Those with arms in the area took all the steps open to them to rid themselves of those arms. I do not condone the holding of arms by any civilians. People got rid of their arms by throwing them over yard walls and planting them on innocent people. At the moment a young mother of three children—Mrs. Margaret Fennell—is in Armagh Prison. She had nothing to do with the holding of arms or with any subversive organisation, but once the curfew was announced two or three people threw their arms into the kitchen of her small back-to-back house, and the troops subsequently raided the house. The young mother is now serving two years' imprisonment. Many similar incidents occurred.
I would have believed that, in the interests of the name of the British troops and of democracy as we know it, all facilities should have been given for the elected representative of the area, and also members of the Press, to see what was then happening in the area.
I want to hear the Minister's reply. I hope that such an occasion will never arise again in Northern Ireland. I am convinced that the overwhelming majority of my constituents do not want such an occasion to arise again. I merely ask the Minister how much was Paid in compensation by the military authorities to people living in the area because of what happened during the curfew period.

12.2 a.m.

Mr. Raton Pounder: I had not intended to intervene in the debate, and I do so now very briefly.


I have some anxiety about the desirability of raking over events that took place six months ago—certainly of raking them over as the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) has done, in an intensely political way. I can only say that I utterly deplore it.
I happened to be in the constituency of West Belfast shortly after the incident took place. Against the background of that time it is fair to recognise the tense situation that existed in parts of Belfast. I have no hesitation in commending to the House the conduct of the General Officer Commanding—General Freeland—at that time.

12.3 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ian Gilmour): The hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) explained why he was only now bringing up this matter. We understand the reason for the delay. Nevertheless, most hon. Members will agree that this is a very unfortunate moment for the matter to be raised.
The hon. Member explained that the constituency concerned was not his but that of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). We explained that he had become interested in this event because of what he had been told by a constituent who was the brother of a lady whom he alleged was prevented from going across the curfew line to visit her ward in hospital. This illustrates the disadvantage of bringing up a case which does not refer to one's own constituency. If the hon. Member had been concerned with his own constituency he would probably have discovered that the lady concerned was allowed across the lines and did go to visit her ward in hospital.

Mr. Kaufman: rose—

Mr. Gilmour: I have gone into this—

Mr. Kaufman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gilmour: No. The hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Kaufman: On a point of order. Over a period of four months, the hon. Gentleman refused totally to investigate this incident and said that there was no reason to investigate it. Now, the Minister suddenly springs this—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order.

Mr. Gilmour: The hon. Gentleman is merely wasting time by raising these bogus points of order. I thought that he would be interested to know that what led him to concern himself in this way was a non-event. It never took place.

Mr. Kaufman: Why was not I told that in July?

Mr. Gilmour: Because I did not know. Perhaps unwisely I took the hon. Gentleman's word for what happened.
The hon. Gentleman made a great deal of the death of Mr. Patrick Elliman, and quite rightly, because it is very sad. However, the post mortem showed that Mr. Elliman was not killed by an Army bullet. For the hon. Gentleman to say that the only deaths at that time were caused by the Army is flatly untrue. It is very sad that Mr. Elliman was shot, but he was not shot by the Army. Again, I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be glad to have the true facts brought to his attention.
The hon. Gentleman said that he was solely concerned with the point of law, and thought that what had happened in Falls Road might happen in Manchester. If there was a very serious riot in Manchester and if the same situation that pertained in Belfast occurred in Manchester, that might be so. But perhaps I might remind him of what that situation was, because I do not think that anyone listening to him tonight would get a very clear impression of the situation with which the Army was called upon to deal.
This is a summary of the situation on 3rd July. Late on the afternoon of Friday, 3rd July, information was received of an arms cache in a specified house in Balkan Street. A small joint force of the Army and the R.U.C. carried out a successful search of this house. At 5.30 p.m., it withdrew with the arms which had been seized. Immediately afterwards, detachments which had been covering the force came under attack from hostile crowds. Barricades started going up in the main roads bordering the Lower Falls area and round its perimeter with the clear intention of converting the area into a fortress. At about 7 p.m., grenades were thrown causing the first five of 17 military


casualties occurring during that night. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman regrets the military casualties just as much as he regrets the other casualties.
Up to this stage, the security forces had been using CS and batons to control the rioting, but from then on they encountered sustained firing from rifles and automatic weapons in addition to having thrown at them grenades, petrol bombs and stones. In their own defence, the troops were forced to use firearms, and it was necessary to bring considerable reinforcements into the area. It was decided only then—I emphasise that this was not pre-planned—that the situation justified a cordon and search operation of the area. At 10 o'clock that evening, therefore, restrictions on movement were announced so as to clear the streets in order to enable the security forces to deal more effectively with the gunmen and the grenade and petrol bomb throwers and in order that the further search operations could more successfully be carried out. If the restrictions that the hon. Gentleman objects to had not been imposed, there would have been severe civilian casualties, and I can hardly imagine that he would have wanted that to happen.
The hon. Gentleman may object to the language of General Freeland's proclamation. However, I suggest that the battle situation that the Army then faced was not an occasion when people worried too much about the finer points of English and polite literacy. An announcement was made that civilians were to stay at home, and these restrictions remained in force until the Sunday morning.
The hon. Gentleman said that very few firearms were found. The first search of the house in Balkan Street produced 14 firearms, including a submachine gun, and over 1,000 rounds of ammunition. The subsequent searches carried out during the period of the restrictions produced 93 firearms, including five sub-machine guns, and 24,000 rounds of ammunition. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman, on reflection, really considers that is a very small haul.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the suffering caused to innocent parties in the Falls Road area. I entirely share his regret that this took place. No doubt there were many entirely innocent people who were gravely inconvenienced, and I

am sorry about it. But, in view of the situation with which the Army was faced, I think that the House will agree that the measures which were imposed were absolutely necessary and that no alternative was open to General Freeland.
I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman made no allegations against the Army in this matter. I think that he will agree that probably no other Army in the world would have carried out an operation like this with such considerable restraint. I am glad that we are agreed on that.
The hon. Gentleman made a great deal about the legality of curfew. He has corresponded with me about that subject. However, I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman remains determinedly unconvinced about what I said. It is true that the restrictions were described by General Freeland as a curfew, for the simple and understandable reason that "curfew" is a word which everybody understands. In a battle situation—[Interruption.]—it is a word which would be used in any circumstances. It is important, in a situation such as I have outlined, that everybody should know straight away what they are meant to do; in other words, to get indoors. Therefore, "curfew" was an entirely sensible word to use.
The fact that the restrictions were imposed under the common law, not under the Emergency Regulations, seems a very minor point, with respect to the legal learning of the hon. Gentleman. But the fact that they were imposed under the common law does not make them any less legal. The hon. Gentleman quoted Maitland on Insurrection; but the duties laid down under the common law are every bit as clear. They apply, incidentally, to ordinary private individuals just as much as to the Army. The Director of Operations, General Freeland, had a very clear duty imposed upon him. It is his duty, as it is the duty of all private citizens, to assist the civil authorities generally in the maintenance of peace and in the prevention of crime and, in particular, in the suppression of a riot or unlawful assembly.
In view of the facts which I have given to the House, the hon. Gentleman cannot maintain that there was not a riot situation that night. I agree that


there were a lot of people in that area not rioting; perfectly innocent people who were just as anxious for peace in Northern Ireland as, I am sure, practically the entire inhabitants of, and certainly every soldier in, Northern Ireland are anxious for the imposition of peace. But men who are determined to use force and violence for their own ends have to be met by certain measures which will inevitably inconvenience some of the

innocent as well as the guilty. We do everything in our power—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Monday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-four minutes past Twelve o'clock.